I don't care for the UN much.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Saurus
never really affect the outcome of the game anyway so is a compleatly unnessesary concept.

This depends on playstyle and difficulty. If an AI builds the UN and wins, it can hardly be said to not affect the outcome.

Also, the player can significantly affect the outcome, as I posted above. (If you can be bothered to read it).

[_BuRjaCi_]

SMACs planetary council is the way to go. You are elected secretair general; wich gives you a trade bonus and lets you call votes (every X years) not have them poup up in X years. And I want to be able to impose sanctions on some nations ; force all civs to stop trading with a civ you don't like; no resource no, no foreign trade- oh yeah thats just as efective as a military invasion in a space race.
Or to soften somebody up for invasion.

[iapetus556]

You don't have to be Head of the Planetary Council to call a vote - anyone can do it.

But the Head can veto any proposal unless all other factions support it.

[greenday_234]

I like the UN, however I think it needs to have more options than just civics, i.e. trade embargoes, "peacekeeping" options, negatives and positive results with any given vote etc. I think often times the UN just gets repetitive because there is no real depth to it.

I'm going to put up a poll on a new thread, maybe with enough votes we can get firaxis to take notice with the next expansion

[Ijuin]

You should also be able to propose ANY civic (except for the "primitive" ones like Barbarism, etc.) for global adoption, not just the most "liberal" ones. For example, Representation, Free Market, or State Property (imagine Mao demanding that the world turn Communist! ^_^ )

[Amarsir]

Well as always there's the realism concern and the gameplay concern.

For realism, you'd want to have the UN require "Free Market." But you don't change. 5 turns later they say "Seriously, go to free market." You do nothing. In another 5 turns you get a message "Go to free market or else ... we'll pass another resolution!"

Could make for a great cutscene with the leaders standing around shrugging their shoulders at each other.

If the "forced civics" aspect bothers you, just pretend there is the option to ignore, but the penalties are so terrible you never want it. Kind of a logical shortcut but it does address the issue. I agree however that limiting which civics you can force is pretty silly. If you're calling the vote you should be able to choose among any of the civics you currently use.

However, I think it's a simple change to add voteable civics by modifying Civ4VoteInfo.xml. Haven't played with it though so I don't know what potential pitfalls exist.

Now from a game perspective, I think the biggest problem is predicting in advance what will pass. I can play toward a Cultural or Space Race victory with some reliability. But I don't really know if people will vote with me until it happens, no matter how friendly we seem. It's hard enough managing relations up to that late in the game when two friends may make mutually exclusive demands. But if an AI wants to navigate that path it just gives me an extra reason not to be hated, and that kind of restriction isn't a bad thing.

The problem with non-victory UN resultions is that it's the last place you'd want a power creep situation. I already have problems with them manufacturing goodness (additional trade routes) and wouldn't want that expanded or made exclusionary. Worse would be drastically changing the game (automatic defense pacts). Either of these could (in addition to realism problems) change the UN's role from an added feature to a must-have or a must-stop. I don't like that, I think the only hammer it should have is the victory vote.

I could certainly go for having it earlier though. A lot of National Wonders seem to be mostly for late-start games (which I sense are uncommon), and and this is possibly one of them.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Amarsir
If you're calling the vote you should be able to choose among any of the civics you currently use.

I don't agree - at least not if the proposal is to be taken seriously. The most advanced civics all have compelling moral and/or practical arguments that support them, at least if the concepts aren't taken to too great an extreme. Thus, adopting them as global civics merely calls on nations to adopt policies that the more honest and less selfish among their leaders already know are right. That is a very different proposition from trying to force societies to abandon enlightened policies in favor of social or economic policies that their people find morally repugnant as a matter of basic principle.

Note that to make this argument work in regard to economic civics, it is necessary to presume that the Environmentalism civic represents a set of viewpoints and policies that is somewhat less controversial than current-day environmentalism tends to be. A mature version of Environmentalism would need to be more focused on defining priorities based on cost/benefit analysis than is often the case with current-day environmentalism. But there's still a lot of time left before 2050.

[eluciv]

I agree the UN should be more versatile than only the "most advanced" civic in each category. I think it would result in fewer civic resolutions being passed, though.

I think a trade penalty (no trade routes with "UN abiders" even) as well as being unable to vote in UN matters would be a fair and just alternative to the forced civics. I mean, the UN's function is pretty pre-determined - especially if one of the AIs gets elected. They eventually propose everything it seems. Where's the fun in that?

[padillah]

Originally posted by nbarclay


I don't agree - at least not if the proposal is to be taken seriously. The most advanced civics all have compelling moral and/or practical arguments that support them, at least if the concepts aren't taken to too great an extreme. Thus, adopting them as global civics merely calls on nations to adopt policies that the more honest and less selfish among their leaders already know are right. That is a very different proposition from trying to force societies to abandon enlightened policies in favor of social or economic policies that their people find morally repugnant as a matter of basic principle.

The problem with this is it implies that there is one overriding set of choices that is best for all involved, that's simply not true.

Not to enter into a debate on Middle Eastern politics but, for example, Palestine was given free elections and then, when they freely elected a Hamas leader the Israelis refused to meet with him because he's a terrorist. Well, pick one rule - either you let them have free elections and deal with the consequences or don't let them hold free elections and force them to abide by the rule of someone you choose.

In this particular example free elections didn't turn out the way the Israelis wanted. Doesn''t that make it a bad choice? But it was a free election, so doesn't that make it a good choice?

Comunism can work, if implemented correctly by people that want it to work, it's the most "enlightened" choice. What's more enlightened than "everyone working together towards a comon goal."? Didn't workout that well though did it?

Also, who get's to decide which ideas are the most "enlightened"? I mentioned Israel before, they don't seem to be doing too bad at a state sponsored religion, why should we force them to adopt Free Religion? Maybe we need to figure out how to implement state religions in the rest of the world. Maybe THAT's more enlightened.

In short, unless you know everything and everybody there's no way to tell what's best for everyone.

So let US choose which Civics to vote on in the UN. Of course we may get stuck with one and need to change it, then what?

Tom P.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by padillah


The problem with this is it implies that there is one overriding set of choices that is best for all involved, that's simply not true.

Not to enter into a debate on Middle Eastern politics but, for example, Palestine was given free elections and then, when they freely elected a Hamas leader the Israelis refused to meet with him because he's a terrorist. Well, pick one rule - either you let them have free elections and deal with the consequences or don't let them hold free elections and force them to abide by the rule of someone you choose.

In this particular example free elections didn't turn out the way the Israelis wanted. Doesn''t that make it a bad choice? But it was a free election, so doesn't that make it a good choice?

One of the consequences of a democratic election is that nations are held accountable for the choices made by the people they elect. That's not just true of Palestine, but of all countries with democratic processes. Bush's actions shape foreign opinion of the U.S., and Chirac's shape foreign opinion of France. Hamas is engaging in unusually extreme behavior for a democratically elected government in refusing to recognize another nation's right to exist, and in doing so, it is provoking unusually strong reactions against its choice by some other democratically elected governments.

No one is suggesting that the Palestinian people give up their right to elect their leaders. But neither can they claim any magical right to elect whatever kind of leaders they want and not be held accountable for the behavior of the leaders they elect. If anything, the fact that Hamas was elected by the Palistinian people makes it more legitimate to hold Palestine as a whole, rather than only its leaders, accountable for the leaders' choices.

Comunism can work, if implemented correctly by people that want it to work, it's the most "enlightened" choice. What's more enlightened than "everyone working together towards a comon goal."? Didn't workout that well though did it?

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever demonstrated that Communism can be implemented correctly. Communism relies on two things that have never been proven to exist in the real world. First, it relies on the ability to create central planning organizations that can match the combined intelligence of millions of individuals operating in a free market. To give an analogy for what it requires, it's almost like trying to come up with a supercomputer that can match the computing power of the entire Internet. No matter how smart and dedicated the people in charge are, they simply can't wrap their minds around enough things at once to match the total intelligence and flexibility that a free market can provide - except perhaps in a few special cases where the problems are extremely simple and almost identical solutions are best for everyone.

The second thing that Communism needs but that no one has ever proven can actually exist in the real world is a way of motivating virtually all of a large population to work hard and invest when they have no personal economic stake in doing so. Further, the motivation has to work not just in the zeal of the immediate aftermath of a sweeping change to society, but over a period of generations. Without that, the concept of everyone working together toward a common goal degenerates into significant numbers of people just doing the minimum that they are forced to do in order to receive "their share" of goods and services. Unless communism can maintain the same level of economic growth as capitalism, it will keep falling farther and farther behind due to the exponential nature of investment.

So however wonderful true communism (as distinct from the Soviet perversion) sounds in theory, there are no indications that it can work well enough in practice to earn the label of "most enlightened choice." Unless and until real-world experience proves the concept's viability in practice, I agree with Firaxis' decision not to view State Property as an enlightened civic that the U.N. could justify mandating globally.

Also, who get's to decide which ideas are the most "enlightened"? I mentioned Israel before, they don't seem to be doing too bad at a state sponsored religion, why should we force them to adopt Free Religion? Maybe we need to figure out how to implement state religions in the rest of the world. Maybe THAT's more enlightened.

The idea that a state religion is something enlightened inevitably runs up against the problem of, "Which religion?" It's not hard for people to support making their own religion the state religion in their own country. But who in his right mind would push for all nations, including nations where he believes the dominant religion is seriously wrong, to adopt Organized Religion or Theocracy?

In short, unless you know everything and everybody there's no way to tell what's best for everyone.

That's exactly the point. Civics like State Property, Organized Religion, and Theocracy are based on the people in charge getting the power to choose what's "best" for everyone. In contrast, Free Speech, Universal Suffrage, Emancipation, and Free Religion are specifically designed to limit the power of any ruling class to dictate what's "best" for everyone else. Environmentalism is more restrictive in the short term, but that is because it has to be more restrictive if it is going to protect the legitimate interests of future generations who will be affected by economic choices they have no power over.

The reason why I view the enlightened civics as enlightened is not that I believe that I know everything and everyone, but rather is that I know that I don't and I kinow that no one else does either. That knowledge of the limitations inherent in human nature causes me to oppose civics that can only work properly if the people who implement them have superhuman levels of knowledge and wisdom coupled with levels of personal integrity that very few people who are granted enormous power seem able to sustain.

So let US choose which Civics to vote on in the UN. Of course we may get stuck with one and need to change it, then what?

If we can choose, so can the AIs. I don't think the game would be more fun if an AI elected Secretary General could, with majority support from other AIs, force us to adopt whatever unenlightened civics it wants. Being forced to adopt a more enlightened civic whether we want to or not at least has the virtue of moral defensibility even if we find it annoying. Being forced to adopt a less enlightened civic would provide the same kind of annoyance from a gameplay perspective, but without the moral defensibility of being forced to "do the right thing" to make it feel reasonable.

[Ijuin]

"Morally enlightened" or not, I see it as odd that Free Market and Representation are not valid choices for global civics. Especially Free Market--in the real world, those nations with Free Markets like to push the other nations of the world to open up their markets as well. In Civ, Free Market and Representation are also more productive than Environmentalism and Universal Suffrage for nations both large and small (as opposed to mainly large nations as in State Property).

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Destroyer
Forthly, decalring war on any UN affiliated nation should result in all UN nations declaring war back.

Are you serious?! So, when the US and the UK invaded Iraq (Iraq being a UN member), pretty much the whole world (189 countries - including all NATO and EU partners and virtually every other ally of the US/UK) should have gone to war against the US and UK??