{The List} United Nations

[Tassadar500]

Although this isn't actually in the list now I feel it needs to be discussed. I am going to post all ideas in this main post if they have they meet the following criteria; Must be at least 1 paragraph to 3 paragraphs, and is approved by at least 5 people. This just makes everything easy to organize.


United Nation Ideas

[Eli]

(note : I didnt read any of the previous threads on any of the subjects, so originality is not assured)

The UN should be much more complicated(well, being more complicated than the Civ3 UN is not that hard ). There should be lots of possible proposals and they should be as customizable as possible.
Examples :
1) Total embargo. No resource, money, tech, maps, etc trade.
2) Partial embargo. The proposing civ should be able to choose what resources(techs, ...) should be included in the embargo. For example, preventing some nation from buying Uranium or Aluminium or, say, Rocketry.
3) Lots of proposals related to the enviroment. Water level rises and drops ala SMAC, pollution limiting proposals(not sure how that will work), etc.
4) Arms limitation treaties. No nuclear weapons, (assuming unit workshop), no units whose offense+defense modifiers are higher than a certain number.
5) Demanding some nation to destroy all the weapons of a certain type(not necesserely WMD) or face the consequences.
6) A proposal should include not only the proposal itself but a punishment to those who dont follow it. So that violating an Embargo or a pollution limit treaty will result in a monetary fine, building WMD in spite of a limitation treaty will result in embargo and/or war, etc.

And so on... The most important thing, IMO, is for everything to be as customizable as possible.

[Kuciwalker]

Meh... remove it, or make it give a small rep bonus (or something similar), but don't leave it in as it is and don't have a UN council. Allow multi-civ alliances, and that will do the trick.

[Solver]

Definitely radical changes need to be done. A repost from the other thrad:

Reposting from the general idea thread.


United Nations

Short description:

Various ideas to make the United Nations an exciting part of the game and playing an important part in the Modern age. Partially reposted from a thread I made during the early Civ 3 days.

Detailed description:

Generally, it has been mentioned by many posters that the United Nations, as it stands in Civ 3, is not a good concept. It merely has one function - voting for the diplomatic victory. Those who have played SMAC will say that the Planetary Council there was better.

I see the United Nations as an organization in which several civilizations participate, being the leading powers of the world. I hope that, in Civ 4, games with 8 civilizations will no longer be the standard, but rather games with 16 civilizations will be.

Therefore, I suggest two general requiremens to be a member of the UN:

1. Build a United Nations Embassy small wonder. Without this, you can't become a member of the UN.

2. The second requirement, if it was Civ 3, would be, I say, some culture per turn output. Maybe Civ 4 provides something better I don't know. The idea here is, that this requirement would separate the third-level civs from the most powerful ones. I don't think that military size is a good one, because you can be the powerhouse without the biggest military. And the civilization score tends to be too abstract.

So, if you meet the two requirements, you become a member of the UN. Then, any member can call a UN meeting, but there should be some sort of a limit. Not a big one, though, since it's late game already. Maybe, 5 turns minimum between meetings and 10 turns between another review of the same proposal. The UN secretary general should be the exception to both rules.

About the abovementioned Secretary General. Before any other proposal can be considered, the UN must have a SG. It’s elected by a simple majority (more than 50% of votes) by the members. The type of vote here is seat vote. Eligible should only be two candidates, the ones who have more votes than the other countries. This brings us to the subject of vote calculation, but let that go a little bit later. So, the Secretary General is an exception to the period of UN meetings rule. SG also holds a right of veto, both in the country vote and seat vote. I’ll explain these concepts now.

Seat vote is when each civ has a certain number of votes, calculated by a specific formula. Country vote is when a vote of any civ counts as one vote. Number of the seats a civ gets in the UN should, again, be dependant on culture. I do also think that the whole UN thing would then raise cultural priority for people. I think that the UN should have quite some power, and thus culture will be valued higher by people in MP games, because a crafty bargainer could use the UN votes to his advantage.

So, we have a constant value of n – that’s the minimal culture to enter the UN. You get one seat for each culture point per turn you have above the n-1 value. That is, if n is 250 (don’t know if it’s balanced, again) and you are producing exactly 250 culture points per turn, you only have 1 seat in the UN. If you produce as much as 320 culture points per turn, you get 71 seats in the UN. Let’s say this number is m.

However, m isn’t exactly the number of seats you get. For each Great Wonder you possess, m is increased by 10. For each Small Wonder, m gets an increase of 3. For each Great Leader you’ve had during the game, m is increased by 20 (will make the Leader more important!). These are the positive factors impacting m, and creating the number k.

Note: the factors for number k are taken from Civ 3. Maybe Civ 4 has no leaders, or has something else to add to the calculation. The idea is, that this number should be affected by the important aspects of civilization such as those mentioned above.

However, the negative factors are to take impact now, altering k. For each time you’ve used a nuclear weapon, k is decreased by 10%. Thus, a civ using much nukes just can’t be a major power in the UN. For each time you break a peace treaty by sneak attacking, you get 15 seats subtracted. If you declare war in negotiations, there’s no penalty, this only applies to sneak attacks. For each time you sneak attack OR declare war on the civilization you have a Right of Passage agreement, you lose 10 seats from k. This creates the number f, the final number of seats in the UN you get.

Note: If civ 4 features other weapons such as chemical or biological, then the use of those should also impact your final number of seat votes.

Yes, I know that it's not exactly realistic for the number of votes to change with your negative actions. This will also prevent a tactic I used often in SMAC to get the majority of votes - just go ahead and use chemical weapons on other civs, so that their population (and, consequently, the amount of votes) would get reduced.

Take in account that a civ in the UN should always have at least one seat. Even if the negative factors are more than positive, the seat number doesn't go into the negative numbers or anything.

Back to the UN Secretary General, for a bit. Being elected the SG doesn’t give you victory, not at all. To win, you have to be elected the Supreme Leader (better term, anyone?). You can only be elected as the Supreme Leader if you are at peace with everyone currently. Elections for the Supreme Leader are also by the seat vote method; however, you must gain 75% of votes to become the Supreme Leader. Note again - you can't gas around everyone and have 75% all by yourself as in SMAC, because reducing enemy population by atrocious means will likely mean that you are actually going to lose votes on your own.

As I said, the Secretary General has the veto right in the UN. What it means – if it’s a seat vote, then the number of votes for “Yes” decreases by 50%, giving the Secretary General a nice chance to get what he wants. If it’s a country vote (each country one vote), than the Veto overrides all those “Yes” votes, *unless* ALL the civs vote “Yes”. That is, if there are 6 UN members, 5 vote “Yes” on the matter, while the sixth one, which is the Secretary General, says “Veto”, the decision still passes. Otherwise, the veto is executive.

Among other proposals, there will, of course, be a possibility to elect a new Secretary General. I will now give a list of various proposals for the UN, but I think there could and should be more, ideas welcome.

o Elect the Secretary General (Seat vote, simple majority to accept).
This is what makes a new Secretary General come to the driver’s seat. Of course, the previous one can retain.

o Elect the Supreme Leader (Seat vote, 75% or more to accept).
This is what I’d like to see as the Diplomatic Victory. Should be hard enough, and close to that in SMAC, a better model.

o Global Embargo (Country vote, majority to accept)
Vote initiator can choose any civ to direct the Global Embargo at. If accepted, all UN members must declare Embargo on the victim civ. The Embargo can not be cancelled by any leader, only by the UN - the Repeal Global Embargo proposal. The embargo, in Civ 3, would mean no trade of luxuries and strategic resources - modify as applicable for Civ 4.

o Global War (Seat vote, majority to accept)
Vote initiator can choose any civ to direct the Global War at. If accepted, all UN members must declare war on the victim civ. Within the first 10 turns after the measure is taken, you get no option to sign a Peace Treaty. Moreover, all the UN civs are then allied, so signing a Peace Treaty first will likely strain your relationships. This one can be really strong... add something if the vote fails, I think. For instance, a right for the civ against whom the global war was proposed (and failed) to attack the UN members without a diplomatic penalty, or something.

o Repeal Global Embargo (Country vote, majority to accept)
A civ with Global Embargo on it is chosen. If accepted, the Embargo against that civ by all the UN members ends automatically.

o Repeal Global War (Seat vote, majority to accept)
A civ with Global War waged on it is chosen. If accepted, the war against that civ by all the UN members ends automatically – that is, a Peace Treaty is signed. The alliances are also cancelled, and there’s no diplomatic relations penalty for anyone.


Both Repeal proposals can't be called within, say, 5 turns after the Global Embargo/War has started.

o Expulsion from the UN (Seat vote, 66% or more to accept)
Vote initiator can chose any UN member. If the proposal is accepted, the nation gets out of the UN. In order to return to the UN, 20 turns must pass, after that the Civ returns to the UN automatically. I think this is OK. AI notice - AI should favor explusion of countries that are too aggressive in the UN.

o Nuclear Missile Decrease (Country vote, majority to accept)
Vote initiator selects a number of nuclear missiles. If accepted, any civ with that number of nuclear missiles or more than that must disband the agreed number of them within 5 turns. If not done, the member failing to do so faces a 20 turn expulsion, and there’s a strain of relationships - the latter probably being the more important penalty.

o End Military Conflict (Seat vote, majority to accept)
Vote initiator selects any two civs currently at war. If accepted, the two nations automatically sign a Peace Treaty.

Just a couple of proposals here, as I said, I welcome more. Note that you can make two such proposals 5 turns after each other: End Military Conflict, Rome and Greece. 5 turns later you can make another: End Military Conflict, England and India. Offering two same nations is considered the same proposal, and can only happen once in 10 turns.

If a UN member uses nuclear weapons vs. another UN member, a vote about his expulsion from the UN is initiated automatically.


Maybe some sort of a UN Peacekeeper unit should be added, but my ideas aren't too specific yet there...

[Jamski]

As long as winning the General Sec. doesn't = winning the game, I'll be happy.

-Jam

[Tassadar500]

I assume no one wants to see a Diplomatic Victory Condition anymore?

[Fosse]

We want a functional United Nations! Look to GalCiv and SMAC for the barest minimum of functionality.

Nuclear Master... Diplomatic victories might be okay, they were just very lame in Civ 3. NonCheese Diplomatic victories in SMAC (ie. getting the rest of the nations who are at least in the ballpark of being your equal to vote for you, rather than wiping out every base save one of the enemies and voting for yourself) could sometimes be satisfying.

[mrmitchell]

Skywalker's right on. Allow multi-civ alliances/embargoes, and you don't even need the UN anymore.

[realpolitic]

NO DIPLOMATIC VICTORY!
Its a game breaker!

[POTUS]

The diplomacy from MoO3 was one of the few good parts of the game. It wouldn't be too out of place in Civ 4 if there was no Diplomatic Victory.

[Tassadar500]

Plus I don't see how you can improve on the Diplomatic Victory condition and I don't like how it is now. I rather the UN be like what Solver mentioned and give a small rep boost to the builder.

[wrylachlan]

What if the UN is simply the Modern Foreign Advisor Screen?

In the Ancient Age you have primitive diplomacy, so the Foreign Advisor has not a lot of real options, maybe just Peace and War. And the graphics for the Foreign Advisor Screen look like a field where you might meet and parlay.

When you get to Medival Times, the graphic changes to a giant Tent and you get more options, like ROP and Military Alliance.

By the Rennaissance your graphics are an ornate stateroom, and you have access to embargos, etc.

In the Modern Age, once you build the UN small Wonder, the foreign advisor screen looks like the UN, and you have access to the most advanced diplomatic options, like favored nation status, multi-party treaties, nuclear non-proliferation, etc.

The specifics of which diplomatic options should be available in which age are up for debate since there was obviously multi-party treaties before the UN, but the basic idea is to treat the UN as the logical progression in how you do diplomacy.

As a corrollary to this, I think that trade should generate revenue, not just pass revenue back and forth. So if I was trading furs to India for silk, we should both get a "trade bonus" (say 5 gold per turn). And this bonus should go up as your diplomacy gets more advanced. This would make people A) want to trade more B) Want to upgrade their diplomacy, and C) create more international economic consequences of going to war.

[Flinx]

Originally posted by POTUS
The diplomacy from MoO3 was one of the few good parts of the game. It wouldn't be too out of place in Civ 4 if there was no Diplomatic Victory.

I like the idea of some sort of diplomatic win, if it is difficult to achieve (as difficult and any of the other victory conditions) and can be blocked only by 'diplomatic' means.

The problem with the Civ3 and MoO3 diplo victory condition is that they just suddenly stop the game and result in (arguably) stupid outcomes on occasion.
In Civ3, building the UN allows you to control if/when a vote on diplomatic victory occurs; my strategy is to build the UN as soon as I can so that I can block the diplomatic option. I am a builder/peace-maker but a warmonger can do the same and this makes the diplomatic victory condition hollow and unsatisfying.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Fosse
We want a functional United Nations! Look to GalCiv and SMAC for the barest minimum of functionality.

Exactly. I expect a new game in the genre to satisfy the minimum technical requirements of the genre - multilateral diplomacy is certainly a mimimum requirement nowadays when they boast good AI.

[Paddy]

I would like to see the UN getting its hands dirty.

In this age the UN takes funds from its member nations - so we could see a percentage of our budgets drained off, this could be either automatic or on a request basis where by we can hold off on sending the money each year.

Also the UN takes troops from its member nations for hot spots around the world, I reckon this would be interesting to see in action.

So if we have a line of UN Blue Helmets on a common border with a two waring nations during a time of peace and reconciliation, they could either be actively patroling the border (able to engage any parties that try to attack the other party during the peace) or passively patroling the border (standing aside as one attacks the other, but acting all outraged etc).

If we did have blue helmets on duty, I then see the formation of a new unit for each country. A privateer unit for on land, who can move and attack with no nations banner attached, so that they can war on the UN Blue Helmets and / or on the other country.