Trade Sanctions

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Diadem

Things change. Besides, curbing the power of Russia still seems to be a good thing. They aren't the most enlightened nation the world... In fact I think even China is more democratic, at the moment.

I would argue that the three most powerful nations (not mentioning any names) are probably not the most enlightened, right now. At the same time, I would also say this is their governments, not the general population, that I speak of. But when you are one of the most influential countries in the world, you must protect what's your assets... just like in Civ.

Back on topic:

Maybe trade sanctions could be economic or happiness related (no trading of certain resources, like Iron, Uranium, or even Spices to create more unhappiness in the sanctioned country). Group these together (no farmed resources, no mined resources, no fished resources, no plantation... you get the picture), and it could be more devastating.

[sparkyal]

to this off topic part:
Expansion of NATO would really, and I mean really displease Russia. That may drive some hard liners back into power. When Ukraine was thinking of joining NATO Russia was most dislpleased. As for the UN, I really don't hold it in hgih regard. but that's my opinion, it's just ineffictive.

On topic:
A still like the idea of sanctions. Looking over what woudl casue it and who or why the AI would vote for it is really interesting. Truthfully, I think the AI would always vote for sanctions against the human. Which is ok.

Someone asked about vassals. the only time that the vassals must vote with you is for the victory. All other times theyt can say as they wish.

sparky

[Risa]

In real world, the UN is ineffective because it lacks power to enforce its resolution.

In the game it has such power. That brings a serious problem to sanctions. It will ruins civs in the weaker side of a binary divided world, which is not uncommon. A possible solution is it requires more votes than other resolutions, and ablility to revisit the saction resolution to express the change of mind.

[greenday_234]

I've posted this idea numerous times in the creation and files section, and for the must part the conversation has devolved exactly like this (with a few sporatic posts that actually involved Civ4), thus I gave up.

What drives me crazy about the majority of the posts on this particular thread is that instead of talking about how fun it might be to have it in the game, or why it might not be fun, people continously insist upon talking about how it would be unrealistic. Then the conversation devolves into an arguement about the actual UN.

Folks, I may just shock some of you right now, Civ 4 left reality at the door a long time ago. If Civ 4 were "realistic" you wouldn't have resistance last a mathematical amount of time in cities. You wouldn't adopt Representation and then have supreme control over everything that is built. Technology wouldn't be researched for the majority of the game, it would be randomly discovered and furthermore it wouldn't automatically give you the ability to build anything, that too would have to be researched. Do we want that for realism's sake? Boy how fun that would be. So please for the love of god, lets drop the discussion of "realism" and too how things "actually work". Lets make a better game.

I don't care how sanctions actually play out in real life, I just want them in my game because I think it would add more depth.

Thank you.

[Thedrin]

UN trade sanctions and other extensions of the UN such as foreign relations penalties for not adopting UN resolutions were discussed in the Omega expansions thread.

The UN is available for a very small part of the game and isn't always built. Trade routes can be expected to only really be carried out against superpowers (whats the point of sanctioning small empires in the game). These are the nations that benefit the least from trade.

Summary: A big change for little benefit. I don't mind it being added to the game but I would hope that if it were added in an expansion pack it would not be a major talking point.

It seems a lot of requested changes center around the modern era. They may add some extra depth but if you want really profound changes look for ones that impact a considerably longer period of game time.

[padillah]

I think they would be insignificant. They would only impact smallish civs that didn't have a chance anyway. If you're winning in tech by three or four techs, making 500gpt extra, have the largest standing army in the world and no real enemies what could a trade sanction really do?

I can recall several games where I was in such a good position I didn't need to trade (I would avoid it by offereing 10gp as a gift instead). I hear how some of you guys are running away with the game in 1200 BC and I have to wonder what a trade sanction against a civ that far ahead would mean.

Tom P.

[MasterDave]

I agree with Padillah about the trade sanction not really affecting a power that is way ahead of the others in the endgame. By the time the UN gets built, if one power is dominant enough to draw a sanction from the rest, a little less cash and more unhappiness and unhealth is not going to stop them or even from finishing that spaceship or smashing their opponents on the way to a domination.

It might be a fun tool to have, but it is not going to change the game's outcome very often.

[Drefsab]

Yeah, when I proposed the idea, I wasn't really looking to add strategic depth. I just thought it might make the end-game a little more interesting. So if a country makes an unprovoked attack on its neighbor, or if a country detonates nuclear devices, the UN can hold an emergency session to decide what to do.

1) Impose trade sanctions
2) Each member country agrees to donate a certain number of their military units as "peacekeepers"

It could be a fun way to hinder an agressive opponent in the late game if you've been peaceful and have good relations with other civs. But yeah, in the grand scheme of things, probably not much difference in ther overall outcome.

[greenday_234]

good points here, I could definity see how small civs would be the only ones to get screwed. You'd have to find a way to change the voting system as per trade embargoes/peacekeepers. One vote per civ? so that small countries have the same voting power as the bigger ones?

I also think embargoes would be a great way to drive wedges between countries. Which is what I try to do in most games, so that one country doesn't wield all the power. Perhaps the sanctions themselves wouldn't do any damage, but the negative modifiers in diplomacy that would be brought with sanctions certainly would.

[Xorbon]

And, of course, civs shouldn't be able to participate in votes for sanctions against themselves! Or else all of the sanctions would end up being only against the smaller civs.

(This seems obvious, but I hadn't seen it mentioned yet.)

[Alexander I]

I'd like it if the UN functioned more like the council in SMAC did. That was quite entertaining.

[dacole]

agreed

agreed if it was more like the council in AC that would be much better. Diplomacy was in fact better in AC to my mind but I realize not everyone will think so.

[Saurus]

Originally posted by MasterDave
The UN itself is a joke.

It has an Important role in that it helps keeping the Bush administration in check.