U.N. and diplomatic victory: suggestion for improvent!

[MaxPN]

So far the only MAJOR disapointment of the game for me, beside the lack of MP, is the U.N. Wonder and the related diplomatic victory. You have almost no control over it and the fact that whoever builds it get to decide when the elections take place is no fun at all! Where is the diplomacy in all this? I think this is where you can really see that the game was rushed.
What I suggest is this:

- there must be a vote to decide when the U.N. should convenes to elect the secretary general and the vote of whoever built the U.N. has a value of 2 or 3 depending on the number of civs.

- there must be the option to put on the trading table the vote for the sec. gen. in exchange for something big (i.e. cities, advaced technologies, lots of money).

- nobody can vote for himself unless they are the ones who built the U.N.

I think something along these lines would make the diplomatic victory much more interesting and fun.
Any other suggestion or comment regarding this issue is more than welcome.

Max

[MaxPN]

No comments on this issue? Everybody happy with the current diplomatic victory?

[Gaius Marius]

Dip victory is terrible as is. Something like in MOO 1 or SMAC would be much better - with at least a front end for the thing, and some integration into the diplomacy system.

[Gaius Marius]

I just turn it off (dip victory). Of course, this makes the UN useless, but that adds to the realism of the game, right?

[Malone]

I agree that there should be an option to "buy" votes. I would also like to see an option to poll the worlds leaders to see what the outcome would be if you initiated a vote.

[kuroth]

Max I like your suggestions... I wish someone like Yin or Korn would comment on this...

[EnderSword]

I Don't think you should be able to directly buy a vote, and if you can I don't think it should be binding necessarily, in other words the civ always has the option to take your tech and money, then vote for someone else.

Also the UN owner shouldn't necessarily get any special advantage, atleast not one related to the victory itself. I would propose changing the benefit to be a membership fee is charged to all other civs and the owner doesn't have to pay...just like the US who owes the UN $2Billion dollars but refuses to pay. =)

And also the vote should be representative, A large empire with a larger population and territory should have more say, like in SMAC.

Also the whole idea is ridiculous. There is currently a Secretary General of the UN and I bet most people can't even name him...(alot more knew Boutros Boutros Ghali =) He's hardly the leader of the world or anything. a 50% vote is hardly an affirming and dominant position.

Overall they executed poorly, and they knew they did. That's why we have the option to turn it off =)

[gnome]

Buying votes

Actually it would be pointless to allow the "buying" of votes from other civ's. What does it benefit them?

In SMAC it did you some good if an ally was the president of the council. But if the only thing you can do with the UN is elect yourself supreme leader and win the game... there's no incentive to vote with you. It becomes a population contest.

[MaxPN]

Re: Buying votes

Originally posted by EnderSword

I Don't think you should be able to directly buy a vote, and if you can I don't think it should be binding necessarily, in other words the civ always has the option to take your tech and money, then vote for someone else.

Yes I agree. You are not actually buying the vote, but just "persuading" others to vote for you.

Also the UN owner shouldn't necessarily get any special advantage, atleast not one related to the victory itself. I would propose changing the benefit to be a membership fee is charged to all other civs and the owner doesn't have to pay...just like the US who owes the UN $2Billion dollars but refuses to pay. =)

And also the vote should be representative, A large empire with a larger population and territory should have more say, like in SMAC.

I don't really like the idea of a fee

Also the whole idea is ridiculous. There is currently a Secretary General of the UN and I bet most people can't even name him...(alot more knew Boutros Boutros Ghali =) He's hardly the leader of the world or anything. a 50% vote is hardly an affirming and dominant position.

He shouldn't been considered as the leader of the world, but as the strongest diplomatic figure. We can't try to compare every aspect of the game to the real life or most of it wouldn't be realistic at all.

Overall they executed poorly, and they knew they did. That's why we have the option to turn it off =)

I believe that they initially planned something more complex more articulate than that, but then they didn't finish it.

We will see what the future will hold for us civers in the while I will just disable it in my games.