A new UN

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

What if the diplomatic victory option were disabled, and instead the UN Wonder provided you with two things:

1. A reduction in the "reputation hit" you take for launch unprovoked wars; the UN would provide jusitification for your action, as it did in Korea, Iraq I, etc.

2. A reduction in war weariness, for the same reason.

?

[MoonWolf]

Reminds me of the old Eiffel Tower in Civ2! Well, it depends if you want it to be as realistic as possible or how it's meant to be...

[Fosse]

Given that Diplomatic victory is often hollow and unfullfilling, I'd like this. I like the idea of diplomatic victory, and I know it can be done (I liked winning SMAC that way), but something about the Civ 3 version just doesn't cut it.

I always liked the Eiffel Tower! If the Eiffel could repari a reputation in Civ 3, instead of increase attitudes, it could be hugely valuable for the failed Arrian Deception.

Whatever happened to the Statue of LIberty? With Civ 3's anarchy it would be great for the non-religious civ.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I would like to see le Tour Eiffel back in ze game, but not in it's old capacity.

Ah, remember the Statue of Liberty - Eiffel Tower combination? [misty eyed]... um, sorry.

[Kuciwalker]

Unfortunately, neither war weariness (empire-wide) reductions nor ANY sort of diplomatic effects are possible

[Spiffor]

Well, this post enters the category of "wishful thinking for Civ4", so it may be off topic for this particular thread. In this case, just tell me so

When the game started, I thought about the UN enabling multilateral diplomacy. The use of this multilateral diplomacy would be to negociate general peace treaties despite the many MPPs, or to corner a cohesive alliance with more than one fellow Civ.

Basically, you call as many Civs as you like to a multilateral discussion. The discussion ends when everyone agrees with the suggested deals. If someone is blocking the process completely, you can kick him out of the debate (but it will lower the effects of the deal in the end).

Here's an example :
Let's say that I want the Aztecs to stop their successful war against my Iroquois neighbours, who are my useful and peaceful trade partners. I would call the Iroquois and Aztecs to the negociation table, and I'll be willing to pay some of the price the Aztecs may demand. But it doesn't mean I will pay everything in place of the Iroquois.
For the sake of the example, let's say the Aztecs will accept peace for Recycling and 20 gold per turn. I'm willing to pay the tech, but there is no way I pay the money. It could look like that :
- In the multilateral discussion screen, I go to see Hiawatha, and I say I want him to give something to the Aztecs :

Now, I am demanding 20 gold per turn for the sake of the Aztecs. On the screen, it looks like this :

After that, I go to the Aztecs' screen, and I offer Recycling on my behalf, and ask them to give a peace treaty to the Iroquois.
Once all these deals have been cornered, I can see in the "multilateral session" screen that all leaders are willing to accept the global deal. it is now time to close the session, with the new engineered peace coming into effect

I know it sounds complicated, but it is quite simple, really. It would be a terrific tool to have cohesive alliances between more than 2 wountries, it could stop the MPP craze, and it could simply allow the player to be more diplomatically cunning, in a puppet-master kind of way

[Drachen]

Interesting

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, this post enters the category of "wishful thinking for Civ4", so it may be off topic for this particular thread. In this case, just tell me so

No Spiffor, that's the whole point of this thread.

When the game started, I thought about the UN enabling multilateral diplomacy. The use of this multilateral diplomacy would be to negociate general peace treaties despite the many MPPs, or to corner a cohesive alliance with more than one fellow Civ.

Yes, this is sorely missing from Civ currently.

Spiffor, your proposals are great and well thought-out. I think all the UN proposals should be utilized, to create a bizarre super-wonder for the modern age that falls short of the obscene power of the Civ2 UN but still gives you a lot of leverage across the globe.

[Fosse]

I think Spiffor really has the right idea. The only thing is that I would like to see such multilateral diplomacy enabled with a tech, instead of building a wonder. Any one power can use the tech for all (like I can trade communications to somebody who doesn't have writing).

[MoonWolf]

Don't know how well the AI would be able to work with this, but Spiffor's idea sounds great! Also, civs that are succesfully making peace, should be getting a better reputation, especially among it's friends. If the civ is at war, it should be difficult for them to make peace between someone as it will be looked at as a "liar"! (My brain stopped, I can't find a good word)

[Pax]

UN & alliance
You could utilize the systems that are in SMAC, GALCIV and criminal MOO3 to insitute alliance and UN type organization. Players could join these councils propose bills and request assistance

[altF18]

re: A New UN

I think Spiffor really has the right idea. The only thing is that I would like to see such multilateral diplomacy enabled with a tech, instead of building a wonder. Any one power can use the tech for all (like I can trade communications to somebody who doesn't have writing).

indeed, Fosse, i think you have the right idea about Multilateral diplomacy coming with something like a tech,
(Diplomacy? ) and way earlier in the game than the UN.

as for the UN, i agree that it should be a Modern Age Superwonder, meaning unlike all other wonders it would actually have an active role on the international scale, with all civs.
Jeff Brigg's himself said in his interview about considering a more active and feasible role for the UN - a more 'involving' role. with functions and veto powers and stuff they left out when they tried to bring the World Council victory from SMAC to Civ 3 and brushed away everything else about it.
my idea for it would be a new sort of Diplomatic tool, or, actually, one of Indirect diplomacy.
first off, there's the 'Security Council' which would be made up of, of course, the builder of the UN, and four other civs currently friendly with it. instead of these civs being selected by the builder, they are automatically chosen on the bases of military power - the four military superpowers at the time,
on good terms with the builder take up the other seats of the Security Council.
this status is permanent, and regardless of stances taken later or even war - no civ can be booted off the council or their veto not count.
as for the rest of the world, in theory, they automatically join and become part of the UN. there is no choice on entrance, or even the choice to join or not. once the UN is built, all Civs could access its functions, with the SC residing over their requests. (afterall, IRL, only a few and minor states aren't in one
way or other part of the UN, and it would be too much, micromanagement to decide who joins or doesn't. )
so, now there would be a new screen to access under a World menu. This would the United Nations.
once you select it, you'd come to a screen featuring (before the UN symbol) the potraits of the Five SC members and their country names.
beneath that would be a list of options you could put before the UN. these would be things like, Request Sanctions (specify civ) Request Lift Sanctions,
Request Treaty (for a third civ to sign forcefully, the treaty would be any of the ones that could be made via Diplomacy - of course there being a few more, perhaps ala CtP2. )
Request Intervention (for a 'peacekeeping' mission, or war by all members on specified civ) Request Stop War (for weak nations to plea to the UN for bigger fries to stop attacking them).
i'd also suggest Request Condemnation of another Civ, but what consequences would that bring?
anyway, after any civ, even one of the SC, makes a request to the UN, the five members would vote on the request, to either Veto or pass it.
as it goes, one Veto would nullify the request. if it is passed, than the request would be awarded.
if a SC member makes a request, its vote is already a pass.
when the UN is summoned for by a nation to make a request, everyone is not engaged as in diplomacy. instead, only the requester would see the screen, make his request, and than wait for the vote outcome.
if only AI's vote, you will recieve one almost immediately. if you or other players are voting for an AI or other players request, and you are a SC member, one the request was made, a small box would pop up
(with the UN symbol) stating the terms of the request. beneath would be two options - Veto or pass.
after the vote, it would be annonced whether the action was Vetoed, or whatever new resolution was passed. non Security Council members do not get to vote, regardless of whatever little say they have in real life.
as i said before, everyone could access the options of the UN.

well, that's my proposal for a new and involving United Nations. i don't know if it's what you're looking for, or what Mr Briggs might have in mind, but its a relevant concept for the international community (though unfair for the Veto weilders who practically would run these affairs )

opinions or ideas?

[Kuciwalker]

I think you should have multilateral diplomacy around the middle ages, similar to the system Spiffor proposed. There should also be a new treaty option, "alliance". The alliance can conduct diplomacy as a whole, and any treaties and/or pacts it makes supersede those of the members. If the alliance makes gpt or resource deals, who pays/is payed the money or resources is specified. Any member of the alliance can make a proposal as the alliance, but not only does the other side have to accept it, the alliance itself does, through a vote of the members. Perhaps there should be diplomacy options where you can pay someone to vote a certain way on the deal (or even be payed to vote a certain way). New members can join an alliance, and members can be expelled. Other civs can make proposals to the alliance.

Perhaps "alliance" shouldn't exactly be a diplomacy option. You could create one on the foreign minister screen, and specify how certain things are voted on. For example, I could set that when the issue "internal MPP" (MPP between all of the members) was brought up, each member would have a vote based on population or each member would have a single vote, it would require a simple majority/two-thirds/unanimous vote, there would be a quorum of 0/some number/some fraction. Also, these settings could be changed through the issue "amending", which would also have those options (votes per civ, what consitutes a majority, quorum). This wouldn't necessarilly be as complex as it sounds.

[Chemical Ollie]

A comment to why the initial suggestion is not realistic in real life (but still something to consider for the game) :

The US holds the UN, but did not get a reduction in rep hit when starting an unprowoked war against Iraq. The location of the UN building did not help at all.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
A comment to why the initial suggestion is not realistic in real life (but still something to consider for the game) :

The US holds the UN, but did not get a reduction in rep hit when starting an unprowoked war against Iraq. The location of the UN building did not help at all.

That's true, but I think what the wonder is meant to represent is the use of the UN, not the location.