UN vote - most stupid and annoyng thing

[Grumbold]

The UN can be improved in many ways but the game is better for having the diplo victory than for leaving it out. Human players can weigh up the benefits and costs to defying the UN resolutions, the hard part is getting the AI to calculate the options. If it can be done, there are lots of other things the UN could vote on.

I like the idea of different degrees of UN compliance. You shouldn't become a major rogue state for defiance on one issue - and pariahs who share defiance on the same issue might bond closer as a reaction.

On the civics, I think it would be better if the UN voted disapproval of a specific item like police state or slavery, rather than compelling everyone to move to a single solution. That wouldn't stop anyone adopting the civic but it would come with penalties. The major problem with this at the moment is the inadequate interface - it'll take a redesign to allow 30+ vote choices offered to you in a presentable way.

[Handel]

Originally posted by Sn00py



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.

And if I remember correctly the real Stonehenge was build by the druids and didn't provide an obelisk in every city, neither the Aifel Tower provided a free "broadcast tower" to every city. But they are in game and they benefit the owner. But with the UN wonder it is quite the opposite - it hurts the owner, because it can give the other nations better civics, which are not researched yet.

[Grumbold]

Well if you don't think you're going to lead the UN and dictate what policies it puts up to vote, you shouldn't build it