UN vote - most stupid and annoyng thing

[Aro]

UN vote - most stupid and annoyng thing...

Yes, I know. This game is broken. Oh, well...

I'll be back to my broken game now.

[Handel]

Originally posted by Xaintrix


In fact I have curbed some warmongers in this fashion as they arranged their civ to work off some nasty military oriented civics and sure enough they were quite peeved when they ended up spending quite a bit more than they wanted. It shortened the offensive quite a bit and peace prevailed...

With so poor war AI you should be glad you have warmongers.

About UN and my ignorance - yes, I am ignorant. Because what I already know is more then enough not to want to know anything about UN and not to want any UN at all in my games.

So another question: which file to modify to turn off by default the diplomacy victory AND space race?
Whay space race? Because when the AI research rocketry, it forgets about the game and starts feverishly to build anything spaceship related. So the game becomes boring at the end.

[Xaintrix]

Just deselect those victory options in Custom Game.

Done and done. You can kill score victory too so you can go on a domination rampage.

Hey I don't mind warmongers be they AI or friends (had a healthy mix that game) - they're the spice of life!

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Handel

Second - if you are going to force civics, then you must have a reason to do it - so you must have the right to choice which civics to force, not just the last civics from the list.

The reason why the last civics on the list are the only ones that the U.N. can impose is that they are the ones that have a strong moral basis behind them. Most of the other civics would be extremely difficult to find a moral justification to force other civs to adopt, but I can think of two exceptions.

1) If a particular religion would become sufficiently dominant, to a point where it is dramatically larger than every other religion combined, then a worldwide state religion (reflected in civs' being expected to adopt that religion and either Organized Religion or Theocracy) would make at least as much sense as global religious freedom. Games with the necessary preconditions would probably be extremely rare, but not impossible. However, such situations would likely be rare enough to make the code to implement such a concept not worth writing.

2) In the absence of any significant number of civs with the "Environmentalism" civic, I think it should be possible to vote to impose "Free Market" as a global civic. That's something that seems realistic enough, and likely to arise often enough, that it ought to be included.

I also think it would be good to allow civs to reject the U.N. mandated civics in exchange for suffering diplomatic and trade penalties from nations that are following the U.N. mandate, and with the option for the U.N. to pass a resolution declaring war on offenders to enforce its mandate. If the AIs would be programmed properly, that could even lead to conflicts between the U.N. and a bloc of nations that refuses to go along with U.N. mandates - a situation that would be entirely realistic if the U.N. would try to enforce policies that a significant part of the world strongly opposes. That seems a lot more realistic than the kind of omnipotence the Civ IV U.N. currently shows.

Another thing that seems a bit unrealistic is that there ought to be an increase in diplomatic tensions between civilizations that vote to impose a U.N. mandate and civilizations that strongly oppose the mandate. That's not to say that every civ that votes against the mandate should automatically be upset about it. But if the code that determines whether an AI should vote for the mandate assigns a high negative value to voting for it, there should be diplomatic consequences to trying to force the civ to adopt a civic that it views as clearly contrary to its interests.

[Handel]

It is simple to me - the devs decided to make the UN as much as possible "politicaly correct", killing the game aspect. The UN in the game must be a tool of the game and must have uses as a tool in a game. So whoever could build it must have uses to his/her advantages.
Isabelle started to build a spaceship? Force resolution Isabelle to abandon the spaceship or everyoine else will ban the trade with it. Not fair? Of course it will be not fair. I build the wonder and I must profit from it.

And if they decided to make the UN politicaly correct where is the bribery then? Whant to trade oil for food? Gimme 500 golds and you will have your resolution!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Handel
Isabelle started to build a spaceship? Force resolution Isabelle to abandon the spaceship or everyoine else will ban the trade with it. Not fair? Of course it will be not fair. I build the wonder and I must profit from it.

Is that a proposal for what you'd like to do with the UN?

[AoA]

How bout just an option to call a meeting when I want to, not automatically every 3 turns (like SMAC had). If there is that option, anyone know how to do it?

And Civ4, stop asking me to vote AFTER I get the anouncement that the spaceship has launched and the game is over. THE GAME IS OVER. You can delay a vote until after I decide if I want to quit or play more. As it is, the game drags waiting for it to sort out all its messages at the end.

[pauli]

are the votes modable?

[mgdpublic]

I just asked for a Rogue Nation mod in the mod forum. I conquered 4 or 5 cities that all had a Confucian academy and I needed one more to get that sweeeet 50% culture bonus but couldn't build one because of the damn free religion resolution! Of course I didn't quite understand why that civic should me Confucians can't build a fricking academy but... Anyway, a rogue nation should be some combination of the following:

1. Furious relationship with all member states

2. Maybe all declare war

3. Trade sanctions.


The UN is not my sovereign!

[Silbeg]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I also think it would be good to allow civs to reject the U.N. mandated civics in exchange for suffering diplomatic and trade penalties from nations that are following the U.N. mandate, and with the option for the U.N. to pass a resolution declaring war on offenders to enforce its mandate. If the AIs would be programmed properly, that could even lead to conflicts between the U.N. and a bloc of nations that refuses to go along with U.N. mandates - a situation that would be entirely realistic if the U.N. would try to enforce policies that a significant part of the world strongly opposes. That seems a lot more realistic than the kind of omnipotence the Civ IV U.N. currently shows.

Definately makes a lot of sense to me!

[spy14]

I also would like to do a Dubya and defy the U.N. If there are diplo penalties etc, so be it, i'm still going to build my nuclear "deterrant".

As for the constant 3 turn vote system, why? A vote should come when the U.N. president wants it, or when enough Civ's demand it.

[Silbeg]

That is probably why the system doesn't allow defiance of the UN directives.

I'd say it was probably more of an exploit for human players than AI players... since you would probably code AI players to not defy UN directives.

So, thinking about it, I reverse my previous thought...

[Kc7mxo]

Originally posted by nbarclay


The reason why the last civics on the list are the only ones that the U.N. can impose is that they are the ones that have a strong moral basis behind them. Most of the other civics would be extremely difficult to find a moral justification to force other civs to adopt, but I can think of two exceptions.contrary to its interests.

I disagree, I don't think morality should have anything to do with the UN, because morality is not static. Different cultures have very different belifes. There could easily exist a culture which felt enslaving all other nations was right and just, and that their single autocratic leader was the embodiement of their deity and therefore infallible.

The UN should just reflect what its members vote on.

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by Handel
It is simple to me - the devs decided to make the UN as much as possible "politicaly correct", killing the game aspect. The UN in the game must be a tool of the game and must have uses as a tool in a game. So whoever could build it must have uses to his/her advantages.
Isabelle started to build a spaceship? Force resolution Isabelle to abandon the spaceship or everyoine else will ban the trade with it. Not fair? Of course it will be not fair. I build the wonder and I must profit from it.

It's not really a United Nations is it then?


Regardless of what it is today, the U.N. was built out of World War 2 (known then as League of Nations). It had a purpose: to create world peace, uphold justice and open the doors to freedom.

Keep in mind, the builder of the wonder is NOT entitled to make up its own rules. That would destory its purpose.

[Poida12]

You'd think you would be able to enact political sanctoins on warmongering civs and the like. That would be more accurate to the action of the real un. Maybe a civ who has repeatedly been at war could be banned from trading resources of something in a political attempt to curb their violent behaviour. Would this make the game less fun however? Maybe a blend of reality and fun is more appropriate. That said, the resolutions are a bit stupid and dont seem to change the game dynamic all that much. Did anyone notice something i didn't or are they really that pointless?