Alliances. . .*Allied* victories

[airdrik]

Actually, the UN is not controlled by the US (the founder there of) but by it's deligates. Therefore, each civ that participates in the UN has an equal say in who can/will join, and all affairs thereof. If a civ asks to join the UN, all civs already part of it vote, and the majority decides if that civ joins, if there is a tie, then probably it is denied for one turn, after which they can re-partition to join, another vote, etc. until there is not a tie.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I realize the USA us not in control of the UN, I was just thinking in general terms. Your idea of voting is a good idea, but I think it is too micromanagement, maybe the leader of the UN could choose, but the other civs in the UN would have a say in it, if the magority did not agree with the desision of the leader, it would be thrwarted.

[OreoFuchi]

quote: Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 12-11-2000 03:56 PM I realize the USA us not in control of the UN, I was just thinking in general terms. Your idea of voting is a good idea, but I think it is too micromanagement, maybe the leader of the UN could choose, but the other civs in the UN would have a say in it, if the magority did not agree with the desision of the leader, it would be thrwarted.

How do you propose to find out whether the civs agree or not without voting?

[airdrik]

The way you can do it without voting is you (and all other civs) would put out a 'platform' on the things you are against, the things you are for, and the things you don't care about. When a case is being proposed (like a new civ wishing admittance), then it counts up all the yes's, all the no's and picks a random number for all the maybe's. Whatever wins is the decision, and a message will pop up saying what the verdict is (and what you voted if you said maybe).

Problem with this is you have to alwasy make sure your platform is up to date. But if they used a voting system, you only needed to worry about it if something came up.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Thank you for answering his question Airdrake. I agree with you on this.

[OreoFuchi]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 12-11-2000 07:05 PM The way you can do it without voting is you (and all other civs) would put out a 'platform' on the things you are against, the things you are for, and the things you don't care about. When a case is being proposed (like a new civ wishing admittance), then it counts up all the yes's, all the no's and picks a random number for all the maybe's. Whatever wins is the decision, and a message will pop up saying what the verdict is (and what you voted if you said maybe). Problem with this is you have to alwasy make sure your platform is up to date. But if they used a voting system, you only needed to worry about it if something came up.

I think just voting is a lot simpler than always keeping your platform up to date and trying to anticipate how you'll feel about something in the future. How long does it take to click yes/no? Less time than it takes to tell a settler to irrigate.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Airdrik is not just talkin about clicking yes/no, he saying that over time, it will get quite boring, and too much micromanagement over time, just look at near the end of the game, it takes like 5 minutes for me just to get through my cities at the beginning of my turn so I can start moving units.

Am I right, Airdrik?

[airdrik]

Actually, it could be an option if you want to keep up a platform, or if you want to be prompted when a decision is being made. That way if you are one who might change your mind often on ideas you can just have it prompt you, or if you never change your mind about issues, then you can just set up a platform and keep it like that for the durration of the game.

[Biddles]

quote: Originally posted by Gilgalad5 on 12-10-2000 10:36 PM FYI, Biddles, the Dual Monarchy was simply Austria's way of placating the Hungarians--giving them large amounts of political autonomy. Before this it Hungary was under direct Austrian rule.

Yeah, I realise that. Did you note that I said the closest thing that I could find. I can't find a single example of two powers voluntarily forming a single country. I was saying that the closest thing to that was Austria-Hungary, since although Hungary was under Austrian control, it wasn't happy and the hungarian people tried to rebel numerous times. Austria went to the hungarian leaders and said, well, we'll give you autonomy a constitution, a parliament and separate courts, but the emporer of Austria will also be the king of hungary. The Hungarians agreed. This is the closest thing I could find. I know it's not the same as two powers joining. It was kinda a joke as well (I wasn't serious about daughter units!0

Edit: Stupid spelling mistakes that changed the meaning (sorry).

[This message has been edited by Biddles (edited December 11, 2000).]