How does the UN work?

[volcanohead]

.

[alva]

Do you guys mod the "jail" out of monopoly as well?

Sod the jail, if I want to throw equal dice six times in a row for my little car no mutha is gonna tell ME it's not OK! Yeh! And then I'll raise the rent again! YEH!

[volcanohead]

THAT'S THE SPIRIT ALVA!!!!

[Verenti]

I don't but truely, If you didn't like the jail that much in Monopoly then don't play with it: Its called a "House Rule".

Honestly, the Jail is a great late game strategy: If all the properties are owned you just avoided three turns without paying out anything.

[volcanohead]

wth? How did we get on to Monopoly?

No, seriously, the fact the UN works like this is a very strong decision by Firaxis. It has to work like this otherwise non one would give a damn about the UN side of the game, and the resolutions would just be ignored (which is where this differs from real life, of course...). I

was pulling the leg of what I perceived as a classic US position before from Sava: No UN is gonna tell US what to do! We're a goddam SUPERPOWER!

[Lorizael]

A friend of mine, who plays in a rather warlike manner, tending to ignore the finer points of diplomacy, usually razed whatever city built the UN, just to make sure someone didn't win while he was busy conquering the world.

So. The UN says you can't build nukes? Okay. Take the city by conventional means, then burn it to the ground. Nuke to your heart's content.

Will that work in Civ 4?

[alva]

I suppose so.

[Dravin]

Well, if all involved don't mind such a change to the rules it's all cool, and since the AI isn't going to mind, changes to the singleplayer game are all cool. My family plays Monopoly (to use your example) with the house rule that fees end up in the middle of the board and landing on free parking lets you snatch up the goods, definetly not the out of the box rules, but really why would somebody not playing with us care?

Anyway, since the fun of a lot of people is controling the destiny of their Civ and I can understand not liking the thought that the AI is capable of taking that control away from you and thus the desire to remove that capablity. From what Solver says it isn't much of a concern, but before that bit of knowledge came to light I can understand the reaction of, "My Civ, hands off!"

Edit: Looks like house rules have been brought up, teaches me to type slow.

[LordShiva]

It would make more sense if you're allowed to disobey resolutions, but have to face sanctions or something as a consequence.

[Lorizael]

I would like that. You disobey resolutons, but find that nobody in the world will trade you wheat or oil or spices or what have you. And suddenly your nation becomes dangerously unhealthy, unable to produce military units, and unhappy. Seems a fair trade off.

[volcanohead]

I agree with you Shiva, but what sanction would it be? all the world turns on you? Even your strongest allies? In this way the sanctioning could potentially be exploited... But maybe that is better in the long run. Something to experiment with, definitely. But pulling the teeth of the UN would render it completely irrelevant.

[Verenti]

I think the penalty should be a Negative Diplomacy hit between UN members and Non UN Members. Like -4 or somthing. Plus the UN members get more trade profits due to a certain resolution.

That sounds fair to me. But really, Why does the UN have the right to tell you how to run your country? I think if there is a Civic vote (and there is) that you should be able to specify which Civics to universally adopt like "Vote to mass adopt Slavery" or Theocracy or Police State, and after every vote (if it goes against the way you voted) you should have a chance to pull out.

That way its more realistic to the World you built over thousands of years rather than the world that was built in real life. Maybe those ideas like Liberalism never caught on and the world is still ruled in Police States and Absolute Theocratic Monarchies. The UN probablly wouldn't vote for "Universal Sufferage" on such a world that Democracy never took root. However a vote to move those Monarchies into Police States may.

[ajbera]

All the other civs like you less (-3 or -5 to diplomacy ratings with each civ), and trade agreements with you are cancelled. That's a major, but not game-threatening penalty.

the UN will be "improved" by mods fairly soon, I think. The moddability of the game allows each of us to fine-tune it to be closer to our ideal version of Civ. That's one of the things that's so great about it (though the vanilla version seems pretty excellent.)

[alva]

My family plays Monopoly (to use your example) with the house rule that fees end up in the middle of the board and landing on free parking lets you snatch up the goods, definetly not the out of the box rules, but really why would somebody not playing with us care?

So did we.

The thing is that you at least played the game before making modifications.

[Dravin]

Actually I don't think I've ever played a stock game of Monopoly (baring software that doesn't give a choice), for the longest time I even thought that little modification was in the offical rules.