Disarmament in future civ game

[minuzi]

Good idea, panag. This could be just like the S.A.L.T. treaties regarding strategic offensive arms and nuclear warheads between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. some years ago. In addition, wouldn't the game be so much more interesting if the United Nations actually had a meaningful role other than as a way to claim a diplomatic victory? There should be some sort of benefit for building the U.N. and being elected Secretary General besides victory. What if each civilization in the game contributed units to be included in a U.N. force? An expanded role for the U.N. would work well with general disarmament of certain weapons among all civilizations. The Secretary General should have the ability to call for elections regarding the prohibition of certain offensive weapons such as ICBMs, tactical nukes, nuclear submarines, bombers, etc. If the vote passed, then all current stockpiles of the respective unit would be destroyed and any breach of the strategic arms limitation agreement would be enforced by the U.N. force. Any comments/suggestions?

[minuzi]

Sorry about the double post. I only wanted to refresh.

[Panag]

Originally posted by minuzi
Good idea, panag. This could be just like the S.A.L.T. treaties regarding strategic offensive arms and nuclear warheads between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. some years ago. In addition, wouldn't the game be so much more interesting if the United Nations actually had a meaningful role other than as a way to claim a diplomatic victory? There should be some sort of benefit for building the U.N. and being elected Secretary General besides victory. What if each civilization in the game contributed units to be included in a U.N. force? An expanded role for the U.N. would work well with general disarmament of certain weapons among all civilizations. The Secretary General should have the ability to call for elections regarding the prohibition of certain offensive weapons such as ICBMs, tactical nukes, nuclear submarines, bombers, etc. If the vote passed, then all current stockpiles of the respective unit would be destroyed and any breach of the strategic arms limitation agreement would be enforced by the U.N. force. Any comments/suggestions?

hi ,

well the "peace deal" could have those salt treaties in them , ....

the un , ....... sigh

okay , what is needed is poorly equiped overpayed UN troops , .....

he who builds the un should have those , maybe only for a number of turns , like 40 or so , then the other of the counsil , the counsil are a mix of the most wealthy and biggest civ's with a max of lets say 4-6 in total should get the troops ( this is an option , maybe its easier to have only troops build there where the UN is , ....) then these troops could move around , no nation should be able to kick them out , otherwise the countries in the counsil would declare war on that civ , ....

other civ's should also pay the un something ones in a while

and while we have the un we should also get the nato or the eu in it , ......

have a nice day

[Shogun Gunner]

These ideas dovetail with my desire that Civ4 have improvements in the area of AI strategy, negotiation, and treaties. CtP 1/2 still has civ beat in the area of AI negotiation.

I would be very pleased if this type of idea was represented in the new release. However, it seems suited to the modern era. There could be other diplomatic approaches for each time era.

For example, two civs agreeing to partion unsettled land into seperate spheres of influence prior to planting cities. Of course these agreements could be broken just like a modern treaty. In Civ3, the AI is not sophisticated enough to interpret and handle this level of interaction.

[Nikolai]

Hey! A moment I thought our beloved panag was back!

Oh well... Where did he go btw?

[DrSpike]

Shogun in another bumptastic moment.

[Shogun Gunner]

I like to shake things up...

I've read that there are no new ideas - just undiscovered ones. Paging through a forum like this will reinforce that idea

Basically we all just look for threads that are close enough to the topic we have already decided to post on.

Oh...and Nikolai, have a nice day

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Oh...and Nikolai, have a nice day

... ... ... ...

panag?

[Datajack Franit]

Does disarmament have any meaning as long as you can't invade another civ without making it disappear?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Nikolai


... ... ... ...

panag?

We've finally found his DL.

[Zoid]

It wasn´t until I read panags post (and thought wtf??) that I realized it was a 2 1/2 year old thread...

Disarmament sounds like a nice idea, but isn´t there already a diplomatic option of making defeated nations your b1tch? Or was that in SMAC? I can´t remember...

[Dale]

I don't like it. It's basically making weaker nations (cuz you beat them up) weaker by not being able to re-arm themselves.

Dale

[Modo44]

Re: Disarmament in future civ game

Originally posted by minuzi
Based on current world events, perhaps the concept of disarmament can be incorporated into Civilization.

This was a joke, right? If not, just look at the US today, and please stop talking nonsense.

[Kc7mxo]

The victorious nation can impose disarmament (with respect to nuclear weapons). This would mean, of course, no tactical nukes or ICBMs for 20 turns. To enforce this, an inspector, who would basically be a military spy, would be installed without cost in the losing nation's capital.

I don't understand. . . if I was victorious, why do they still have a capitol?

[Proteus_MST]

Re: Disarmament in future civ game

Originally posted by minuzi
Based on current world events, perhaps the concept of disarmament can be incorporated into Civilization. For example, suppose one nation has just finished beating up on another and is in the process of negotiating a "favorable" (Muhahhahahaaaaaa!!!!) peace plan. The victorious nation can impose disarmament (with respect to nuclear weapons). This would mean, of course, no tactical nukes or ICBMs for 20 turns. To enforce this, an inspector, who would basically be a military spy, would be installed without cost in the losing nation's capital. This spy would only be able to access military information, unless a general spy already exists in the defeated nation's capital. If the defeated nation begins producing tactical nukes or ICBMs, the inspector would immediately alert the victorious nation, and the latter would have the right to declare war once again without suffering any harm to its reputation. Any thoughts?

IMHO you should also be able to extend this to conventional weapons.
After WW 1 Germany was forbidden to build certain types of weapons, for example Artillery of larger calibers, or tanks.

Maybe you could implement this by allowing the defeated nation during these 20 turns to only build defensive units (like Riflemen, Spearmen and the like) but no offensive units (Tanks, Cavalry, Artillery etc.)