{The List} United Nations

[Panag]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
OK, this is how I'd like to see the UN work:

1) Have a Security Council and General Assembly.

2) Entry to Security Council has same criteria as in Civ3! Entry to General Assembly is by invitation from Security Council Members.

3) Only Security Council Members have voting rights-except in the case of ties-in which case ALL members vote!

4) Aside from voting rights, only Security Council members may invite or expel General Assembly members (with the support of a voting majority, of course)!

5) UN membership boosts your international Reputation, as well as allowing you the ability to 'Petition' the UN.

6) A petition can include asking for War Declarations, Embargoes, Peace enforcement (and peace-keeping), resource/unit bans, and multilateral treaties-to name a few.

7) After you have petitioned the UN, but before a vote, you can go to each council member and offer what you think it will take to get a positive vote! Once a vote is taken, the result is final until you next make a petition-which must wait a turn!

8) The 'owner' of the UN gets a veto power, and also recieves a portion of each members GDP-which would be used for both maintaining the building and any operational peacekeepers.

9) Owning the UN also decreases War Weariness OR, if the Senate makes a comeback, gives the same bonus as it did in Civ2!

10) If a peace-keeping operation is voted for, then the UN Wonder will produce a number of 'Peacekeeper' units based on the number of Civs in the UN. The owning player can deploy these units to any city that they see fit!

11) peace-keepers would be a high-defense, low attack unit with average mobility (about move:2 in the current system). They can be moved around by the player who owns the UN, but they are 'Neutral' and would have some kind of neutral colour (or a UN flag IF they decide to introduce flags to the game!)

12) If a peace-keeper unit is attacked, the attacking civ takes a major Rep-hit amongst UN member civs and, if a member of the UN, could be expelled!!

13) A civ can refuse to honour a demand from the UN-especially if they are not themselves IN the UN, but doing so can also harm reputation, and even expulsion from the UN if you ARE a member.

14) Lastly, as a member of the UN, you can refuse to pay your dues-but again at the risk of expulsion. Only Security Council members are exempt from expulsion in this fashion. In fact security council members can only be expelled by either attacking peace-keepers OR by failing to meet the original criteria for membership!

Anyway, sorry for the long post, but I hope you like the ideas I've presented!

The_Aussie_Lurker.

hi ,


, a nation should be able to have covert ops , spy missions against them , ..... resisting civilians or guerrilla's without taking a rep hit , ....

have a nice day

[Krushchev]

My personal thought, and this is (quite clearly) just me would stem from a certian book I read...I'd like the UN to be structured so that getting elected head of it gave you perhaps some influence. However, this should be a group that you can withdraw from(at an extreme disadvantage to your international reputation). Also, make it like the Planetary Council in SMAC...I liked that. Though perhaps an interesting twist would be that, if a nation stepped out of line(think peacekeeping here, ladies and gentlemen), someone would have to be chosen, by a 2/3 vote, to lead the military forces...perhaps throw in some dues as well, to finance buying off loans of troops...(sees ways to sneak money off from the general funds...mwuhahah)

I do like the idea of voting within alliances, but that should be part of the alliance later on...and should be an optable term to it. Then again, I like voting...

[Krushchev]

I like the proposals by Aussie...nice ones. What I'm aiming for, and I don't think this is a stretch, is for the UN to work as something of a world-wide alliance, a la today, but with any peacekeeping forces placed under the command of one player/country, chosen by vote. I like the ability to pull out, and I agree that it should have some, to understate considerably, bad PR effects. Nations not complying with UN requests/demands...depending on the level/type of demand, fine them, expel them, declare war on them. And no, I don't think the owner of the UN should be guaranteed either the position of SecGen(or the equivalent) or the position of military commander. I like voting for these positions seperately...largest member nations can compete(I'd say top third or quarter of the players; top two works great if you have seven nations, but with the bent toward sixteen to thirty-two, I think the field needs to be opened more, perhaps with a runoff, just to prevent a total blockout, especially in an MP game in this style.). And I think some propositions should require a 2/3 vote, but these would be the more extreme ones.

Give the military head funding from the UN, which gets funding(in return for protection and the right to present petitions) from its member states(and which can accumulate funds). The head of the UN gets a quasi-veto power(it takes 2/3 or 3/4 vote to override, depending on the proposition) but not necessarily the military command(of course, you could get both, but be prepared to share the wealth...).

[ultrix]

UN:

Peacekeepers are a good concept and they should have the freedom to use roads and rails anywhere ... or treat all squares as road.
As stated, they should be neutral AI controlled units with e.g. 4/10/2.

Global embargo and other sanctions are OK.

The Treaty Organisation concept:

How about making it like normal mutual protection pacts / military alliances but with multiple civs, freedom of movement on other civs' territory and a permission to enter the same square (even a city) which another civ in alliance already occupies?

The treaty would still be formed first and after that civs would join it. And in diplomacy screen there would read like 'Russia (Warsaw pact)' so one wouldn't start a world war by accident...

[Whoha]

One point: The UN shouldn't have sole power over anything. For example, in smac/x I hate it where I have the enabling tech and none of the others does, but I have to go through the council to use raise solar shade option. I should be able to do it on my own, just that doing so without the explicit approval of the others is an act of war if each nation decides that my actions were malcious in intent (using the raise/lower option when there is no global warming/cooling event for instance).

[Krushchev]

Just tossing ideas around...anyone should be able to try for SecGen, as opposed to the top-two model. If there's no majority, then the top two do a runoff (this shouldn't be complicated to control). I can think of a situation where the top two powers in a 16-nation or 32-nation game are not very powerful overall, and are universally hated as well. Another option would be to allow anyone to compete for SecGen, and just turn it into a game of offering concessions (money, tech) to get the job (or make them two options, with the player allowed to choose between them at the game's startup). The thing is, in a game with only seven players (like SMAC), only having the top two compete made sense. But in a case where you have lots of countries potentially jockeying for power, it makes sense (at least to me) to make it a little more open (especially on the upper levels). Besides, selling votes in an election could give smaller countries a potential boost.

[firedog235]

I think kuciwalker's idea is great except that the Alliances could be like Mini-U.N.'s with the possibility of a civilization building an alliance that is so strong and so global that it could become's that game's U.N. (that way, rather then being called the "U.N." it could be called whatever the civilization wanted to call it. so if the world was filled with just middleastern civs, it could be called allah's jihad or something and that would be the U.N. of that game), or, perhaps, there is not large alliance and no U.N. like alliance forms.

Also, these alliances could be formed however the builder of the alliance wanted to form it. So, in one allliance, troops devoted just to the alliance could be controlled by the secretary general (for lack of a better "alliance leader" name) while in another alliance they could be controlled by a third party AI that is sort of like an indepedent coucil elected and directed by the alliance. Also, alliances could be made for a certain purposes, so, there could be a NAFRTA allaince that governs only economic treaties among member civs while a NATO like alliance could direct military things.