United Nations?

[Alex]

Originally posted by sevencubed


Diplomatic victory sucks because it is most unrealistic. The country of the Secretary General of the UN has NEVER been the leader of our world (that is at the time he was the Secretary General).

remember, it's just a game.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by sevencubed
Diplomatic victory sucks because it is most unrealistic. The country of the Secretary General of the UN has NEVER been the leader of our world (that is at the time he was the Secretary General).

So, go into the scripts.txt file and change the message to something like "Vote for the Supreme and Unquestioned Ruler of Earth For All Time".

[sevencubed]

Alexnm and wilbill, i will agree with both of you, its a game and it's neither good nor bad. It's just that I like to see this game apart from a strategy point of view, a bit of simulation as well when it comes to certain concepts of the gameplay.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
So, go into the scripts.txt file and change the message to something like "Vote for the Supreme and Unquestioned Ruler of Earth For All Time".

And here is a file that does just that.

[mrboo123]

I think a BETTER way of useing the UN is, there the civ that builds it is ALREADY part of the Security Council, and get to choices whos part of it (2 for tiny, 3 for small, 4 for sanrtad, 5 for lagre, and 6 for huge.) and get to boot out the other civ out of the council, WITH the ok from the Secretary-General, (which yes, you can conives & "conives" him,) and each civ will have they own runners (ex, Kofi for the Zulus, [becease I think thats the closest to Ghana,]) and they'll be abilt to do all the neat thing that the do today (foriegn aid, peacekeeping, give besseing for war, etc...)

[Naiveplayer]

The United Nations is pretty dumb in Civilization 3 IMO. The UN was built for world peace; yet, when you build it, for warmongers, it is like a stamp of war. You can break treaties and ROPs and do whatever you want and not worry because the other civ has the power of stopping your fun.

[mrboo123]

Originally posted by Naiveplayer
The United Nations is pretty dumb in Civilization 3 IMO. The UN was built for world peace; yet, when you build it, for warmongers, it is like a stamp of war. You can break treaties and ROPs and do whatever you want and not worry because the other civ has the power of stopping your fun.

I liked it, now, I just build it so they don't get it (In civ2, I had a reason for the buliders, like me, to look fowrad too...)

[wilbill]

What about a diplomatic victory? Is that not a reason to build it?

[Nym]

Originally posted by 123john321


I liked it, now, I just build it so they don't get it (In civ2, I had a reason for the buliders, like me, to look fowrad too...)

Exactly the same.

[Vercingettyrex]

It would be nice to have a SMAC thing where there are several issues that the world community might vote on when the UN is built.

Suggestions

1.) International condemnation of a state if it uses Nuclear weapons and resulting univesal war/trade sanctions against said state.
2.) International condemnation of a state if it raises a city to the ground and resulting universal war/trade sanctions against said state.
3.) World wide trade agreement allowing all excess luxury resources to be trade equally and freely amongst partner nations.
4.) Setting up of a world wide bank. Everybody pays a dividend to the bank. A loan + interest can then be negotiated from the UN.
5.) War resolutions. UN members can ask countries at war to stop fighting, with a small chance that they may actually do so. Further a UN force which can be airlifted in under UN vote and composed of UN troops donated by delegates. UN troops have a light blue colour and are controlled by the owner of the UN. They have no attack value but have a defence value.

[WarpStorm]

The thing is that, unlike SMAC, the UN in Civ3 is a way to end the game now, rather than extend it. I usually use it that way if I haven't been too much of a bad boy.

[mrboo123]

Originally posted by Vercingettyrex
It would be nice to have a SMAC thing where there are several issues that the world community might vote on when the UN is built.

Suggestions

1.) International condemnation of a state if it uses Nuclear weapons and resulting univesal war/trade sanctions against said state.
2.) International condemnation of a state if it raises a city to the ground and resulting universal war/trade sanctions against said state.
3.) World wide trade agreement allowing all excess luxury resources to be trade equally and freely amongst partner nations.
4.) Setting up of a world wide bank. Everybody pays a dividend to the bank. A loan + interest can then be negotiated from the UN.
5.) War resolutions. UN members can ask countries at war to stop fighting, with a small chance that they may actually do so. Further a UN force which can be airlifted in under UN vote and composed of UN troops donated by delegates. UN troops have a light blue colour and are controlled by the owner of the UN. They have no attack value but have a defence value.

I didn't I said some thing like that? (By the way I DO agree with you...) :

Originally posted by me.
I think a BETTER way of useing the UN is, there the civ that builds it is ALREADY part of the Security Council, and get to choices whos part of it (2 for tiny, 3 for small, 4 for sanrtad, 5 for lagre, and 6 for huge.) and get to boot out the other civ out of the council, WITH the ok from the Secretary-General, (which yes, you can conives & "conives" him,) and each civ will have they own runners (ex, Kofi for the Zulus, [becease I think thats the closest to Ghana,]) and they'll be abilt to do all the neat thing that the do today (foriegn aid, peacekeeping, give besseing for war, etc...)