The Council (UN?)

[Cyberbugs]

I am very curious how the council will appear in Civ3. I hope it will be an improved version of the SMAC-council, with lots of propositions to make, a chairman and new innovations. The council should play a big diplomatic part in Civ3. For example a Civilization that feels he has been very badly treated by another Civ, could propose a trade blockade against it.

Do you people have any suggestions, or any insight in how the council will be?

[Henrik]

I think the UN should function like the council in SMAC, after the UN has been built you could call a council.
Some new propositions would be needed though.
For example somehting like this:
A voting about wheter its ok to use nukes or not (whit blockades and possibly even war declarations against a civ that breaks the agreement)...
This proposition should obviuously not be availale untill atleast one nuke has been used...
[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited April 28, 2001).]

[Ceci n'est pas Snapcase]

Built, yes, used, possibly not.

What I'd like to see is some sort of council that balances the most powerful players off, possibly with all nations having a veto (like the big five in the real UN Security council). In SMAC, you never really needed to seek consensus for any propostition, and the major use of the council was declaring a diplomatic victory once you had almost conquered the world to get more points. I'd like to see the UN council here be less an exercise in declaring yourself dominant and more an important tool which will be difficult to use. I want to be able to threaten, cajole, bribe and vote tactically to attract other members (ie. "I vote for nuclear disarmament and you will vote for a stop to all spaceship production"). Becoming General Secretary of the UN would require extreme effort as you would need total consensus from all other nations and those with negative dispositions towards you will definately vote no. Make the diplomatic victory a real diplomatic victory by only making it possible if everyone else likes you.

[The diplomat]

The biggest lesson we can learn from the Council in SMAC is that the outcome must not be predictable. In SMAC, all the AI's voted first, and so the player always knew how the vote would turn out.
I suggest 2 solution:
1) Have the human player ALWAYS vote first.
2) Keep the votes secret until the end.

This is very important!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Admiral PJ]

in SMAC there was an original idea where you could influence other Civs (factions) votes in planetary council meetings, with money etc. though this can be seen as cheating the plantetary 'democracy'..

Maybe civ3 could use this , but also allow for vote riggers to be found out and punished.. maybe fined or thrown out the council for a while/remove their vote. It could make things interesting if the party that was being bribed revealed there was vote rigging going on, and get the other party into trouble.

Why stop at just one council, there could be an E7 council too.. where highly industrialised countries work out trade deals etc or NATO Alliance/Warsaw pact groups..

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The Civ who first builds the UN is some sort of leader of the UN.
Each civ who wants to join has to pay some gold for every turn that he's in to the builders civ (like 5 gold or something) This would give incentives for you to build the UN. If the civ runs out of money, he first looses membership to the UN, The next turn, if he's still in the red, he automatically sells an improvement. (like in civ 1 and 2)
The UN would act in the way described by the rest of the people in this thread (ask for embargoes, send units to help others etc.)

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[Solver]

Excellent! I want the council, and the more proposals can be made, the better. And I want decisions on vetos there!

------------------
Solver the "Running Beer" - http://www.aok.20m.com

[Wittlich]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-28-2001 10:11 AM The biggest lesson we can learn from the Council in SMAC is that the outcome must not be predictable. In SMAC, all the AI's voted first, and so the player always knew how the vote would turn out. I suggest 2 solution: 1) Have the human player ALWAYS vote first. 2) Keep the votes secret until the end. This is very important!

I concur with The Diplomat on this one. IF CIV3 has a Gobal Civilization Council (UN if you will), have it work like the World Council in SMAC, but DEFINATELY keep the votes secret until the end. I agree, the human
player(s) should have to be the first to cast their vote(s), in order to keep the human player(s) from unfairly manipulating the council vote.

[Russian King]

I dont understand ,,, is this about the town council, like in civ2, where the 5 advisors argue w/each other?
I wish they were back. Really fun to watch and a good reminder incase i forget 2 build caravans .

[SK138]

I liked the council in Alpha Centauri but would it fit in with Civilization? There isn't a real leader of the UN is there? It would be neat to vote countries in and out though and have like UN treaties and things like that.

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by Russian King on 04-28-2001 09:09 PM I dont understand ,,, is this about the town council, like in civ2, where the 5 advisors argue w/each other? I wish they were back. Really fun to watch and a good reminder incase i forget 2 build caravans .

No this is not about the advisors. Although, Firaxis' website has said not to worry and they will be in the game (which worrys me more than their removal).

This thread is instead about the SMAC coucil concept being applied to Civ III. The concept was that all leaders got together and voted on a variety of proposals including making someone leader of the world. Such decisions in the game could include trade pacts, pollution controls, etc. Hope this helps.

[airdrik]

Here's an idea, have the UN be an advance. That way you won't be so reluctant to waste your resources on building it. It could lead to other things like environmentalism, and other required advances.

If you discover it, you can admit whomever you wish. Others can petition (offering money, units, etc.) to get in and a vote from the UN decides whether to admit them (the more stuff offered, the higher chance that people will vote yes). You can propose various laws (like only 1 nuke per civ, can't build SS parts, trade routes/sanctions, cease fires, peace treaties, etc.) which are ratified with 100% votes, opposing civs can be bribed/threatened to vote with you, or can be ejected with a substantial majority vote from the other civs.

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 05-08-2001 04:07 PM If you discover it, you can admit whomever you wish. Others can petition (offering money, units, etc.) to get in and a vote from the UN decides whether to admit them (the more stuff offered, the higher chance that people will vote yes).

What if I admit nobody and nobody joins, then there would be a UN that nobody would have to obey and nobody would vote in...
All have to be in from the start I think...
An alternate sulotion would be to have atleast half from the start.

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-28-2001 10:11 AM The biggest lesson we can learn from the Council in SMAC is that the outcome must not be predictable. In SMAC, all the AI's voted first, and so the player always knew how the vote would turn out. I suggest 2 solution: 1) Have the human player ALWAYS vote first. 2) Keep the votes secret until the end. This is very important!

Absolutely, and as someone else mentioned, there shouldn't be a world leader (how much real power does the SecUN have?). Although the end-game diplo-victory should definitely be an option.

[Anarcho]

I think there should be a UN type organization.. But it has to be built as a wonder in the TOP CIV (in terms of points, or whatever). It wouldn't make sense just to have a UN... someone has to make an effort to create it. Also, other countries have to agree to opt in to it. Students of history know about the failure of the Leage of Nations.
I think the thing that has made Civ great was that it was highly customizable, lots of options to tinker with, lots of different ways a game could turn out. I don't think there should arbitrarily be a UN, but the possibility should be left open.