How to fix the UN

[SeferKoheleth]

The UN is pretty useless right now-- just enabling a diplomatic victory that most of us never use. Here's a simple suggestion on how to fix it.

The UN should function like the Planetary Council in Alpha Centauri-- lots of "international treaties." Treaties are passed with a majority vote, and the person with the UN gets veto power.

Possible treaties:

Kyoto Treaty-- reduces pollution 50% in all cities

GATT Treaty-- adds 5 commerce points to every city

Nuclear Disarmarment-- all civs declare war on any civ to use nukes

Geneva Convention-- Cannot cature or use foreign national workers, cannot destroy cities

Any other suggestions?
(yes, I know I posted this elsewhere, but I thought it deserved its own forum)

[Pythagoras]

A basic premise of the UN is that gaining land via conquest is wrong.

I agree with you but it seems that lots of your suggestions would be beneficial to everyone with no drawbacks. How about adding some drawbacks like:

Kyoto Treaty - Production is quartered in all cities, pollution by population is halved

GATT - I suppose this is some sort of trade globalization treaty, hmm how about +15% commerce/city (and culture) in the wealthiest civs but -15% commerce/city in civs with the most resources/luxeries in their borders.

Others are good.

How about international sanctions? In fact maybe there could be a system whereby the UN gets together and votes that all member civs should clean all pollution n terms after its produced (or a gazillion other things that could be agreed upon), maybe if that is violated international sanctions could be enforced on that civ or something.

[monkspider]

These are good ideas, anything to add to the ailing condition of the UN would be wonderful. Adding the ability to force one country to declare peace with another is pretty much a must.

[SeferKoheleth]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
Kyoto Treaty - Production is quartered in all cities, pollution by population is halved

GATT - I suppose this is some sort of trade globalization treaty, hmm how about +15% commerce/city (and culture) in the wealthiest civs but -15% commerce/city in civs with the most resources/luxeries in their borders.

I agree with you on Kyoto-- sort of makes sense-- Kyoto will forced reduced production to achieve reduced pollution.

I disagree on GATT-- basically all sound economists agree that free trades helps everyone. It should function sort of like "Commerce Rates Doubled" in Alpha Centauri-- except that CIV III stupidly got rid of commerce income (which should be a great way to encourage non-war making).

Here are some other UN suggestions:

"Peacekeeping Missions"-- majority vote can authorize a peace-keeping mission against a CIV. If owner of UN votes in majority, gets a certain number of UN troops to use at his command.

Potsdam Peace-Conference-- with the UN, you can conduct diplomacy with multiple Civs simultaneously-- not just one at a time. This way, Allies can agree to all call off a war at the same time.

End of Slavery-- all foreign national workers returned to their native Civ.

Recognizing New States-- by majority vote, UN can recognize "independance" of cities formerly controlled by destroyed Civs.-- provided that that Civ has not completely assimilated. So if the Russians destroyed the English and took 3 English cities, and the English have yet to assimilate, the UN can recognize English Independance, restoring English control to those cities.

International Patent Treaty-- all scientific knowledge discovered by 1 Civ known to ALL after 15 turns.

[Pythagoras]

Originally posted by SeferKoheleth


I agree with you on Kyoto-- sort of makes sense-- Kyoto will forced reduced production to achieve reduced pollution.

I disagree on GATT-- basically all sound economists agree that free trades helps everyone. It should function sort of like "Commerce Rates Doubled" in Alpha Centauri-- except that CIV III stupidly got rid of commerce income (which should be a great way to encourage non-war making).

Here are some other UN suggestions:

"Peacekeeping Missions"-- majority vote can authorize a peace-keeping mission against a CIV. If owner of UN votes in majority, gets a certain number of UN troops to use at his command.

Potsdam Peace-Conference-- with the UN, you can conduct diplomacy with multiple Civs simultaneously-- not just one at a time. This way, Allies can agree to all call off a war at the same time.

End of Slavery-- all foreign national workers returned to their native Civ.

Recognizing New States-- by majority vote, UN can recognize "independance" of cities formerly controlled by destroyed Civs.-- provided that that Civ has not completely assimilated. So if the Russians destroyed the English and took 3 English cities, and the English have yet to assimilate, the UN can recognize English Independance, restoring English control to those cities.

International Patent Treaty-- all scientific knowledge discovered by 1 Civ known to ALL after 15 turns.

A globalization treaty should at least affect the culture of less important civs. Not everyone agrees its a good idea, many liberal groups contend that these treaties hurt 'cheap labor' cultures by introducing western goods/values.(this is an oversimplification)

[mwaf]

First off, it shouldn't be called Kyoto, it's should be named after a city chosen by the civ that suggested the treaty. (same goes for the Geneva convention and other treaties named after cities)

Secondly, I don't think there should be a ratio-based reduction in shiled production, instead there should be a shield limit for factories and pollution producing power plants. A civ that only uses clean energy sources should certainly not lose shields. There should even be some sort of punishment for not having mass transit in big cities. I can't quite think of a good punishment though (shield production isn't realistic since that pollution is generated by the population)


BTW, great idea this UN-fix SeferKoheleth. I like it. (hopefully so does even Firaxis)

[SofaKing]

This is a great idea. It sounds like it would function similiar to the Council in SMAC. I think the Pollution Control should keep the name Kyoto Protocol (I'm embarrassed that the US pulled out). Also, the GATT treaty should double income, but also double the amount of unhappy citizens (look at the protests at every WTO meeting).

[Iron Chancellor]

Excellent idea! Concerning the UN peacekeeping idea, though: If a majority condemns a nation, one (or more) nations could call a vote of either trade sanctions, or get a free declaration of war. Note that the peacekeeping nation would still get a diplomatic penalty to all the nations who voted against the resolution.

[Andrew_Jay]

I like the idea of a GATT making citizens unhappy as a trade off. Another idea could be a kind of better relations within the groups of nations considered wealthy and poor, but poor relations between the two groups. That doesn't sound too likely now that I've written it out, seeing how all civs are usually contenders and there aren't really a whole lot of them.
So yeah, unhappy citizens are good enough Perhaps the unhappiness could be tied to luxuries, maybe make them less effective.

Also, somekind of rules of war would be good, like said earlier, discouraging the capture and slave labour of foreigners and the razing of cities. Perhaps messages could come up (and lead to changes in the attitudes of other civs towards yours).
For example "UN disaproves of Shaka's excessive bombardment of Philidelphia" after you've killed a lot of citizens.
Or if you declare war on someone and take a city that you have no claim to "the UN does not recognise Alexander's rule over Orleans". The more cities you simply take and keep, other nations could regard you with less respect.
during peace treaties dialogue could come up in your foreign advisors little box about what the UN wants the two parties to do. It could remind you to return workers, cities, pay compensation etc. in order to maintain good standing in the international community.

[rmsharpe]

The United Nations wonder should triple corruption in the nation it's built. It'd sure as heck add realism to the game.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
The United Nations wonder should triple corruption in the nation it's built. It'd sure as heck add realism to the game.

If that were the case, no one would ever build it!

[Ijuin]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
A basic premise of the UN is that gaining land via conquest is wrong.

I agree with you but it seems that lots of your suggestions would be beneficial to everyone with no drawbacks. How about adding some drawbacks like:

Kyoto Treaty - Production is quartered in all cities, pollution by population is halved

a 75% reduction in production is too much a penalty. How about each civ must pay a 1 gold/turn penalty for each unit of pollution they generate above a certain quantity decided by UN Vote? (this is similar to the penelties levied by the actual Kyoto treaty)

GATT - I suppose this is some sort of trade globalization treaty, hmm how about +15% commerce/city (and culture) in the wealthiest civs but -15% commerce/city in civs with the most resources/luxeries in their borders.

Since it is essentially a TRADE treaty, I would have the income you get from it dependant on what the OTHER civs are generating. For example, each turn every member would get an amount of gold equal to one percent of the Gross Global Product (for example, if all civs combined are generating 10,000 gold per turn, then each civ would get 100 per turn from the agreement). This prevents the largest civs from getting the lion's share of the money (which may not be realistic, but is better for play balance IMO).

How about international sanctions? In fact maybe there could be a system whereby the UN gets together and votes that all member civs should clean all pollution n terms after its produced (or a gazillion other things that could be agreed upon), maybe if that is violated international sanctions could be enforced on that civ or something.

Yes. I would like to see the following (all UN votes require at least four member nations voting):

Set/Lift Global Embargo: All member nations must embargo the target civ for 20 turns minimum.

Declare World War: All member nations must form an alliance against the target civ--obligation to remain in this alliance ends after 20 turns, after which separate peace agreements may be made.

Suspend/De-suspend member: The target nation will lose its vote in the UN until the suspension is lifted or 20 turns have expired. There must always be least three non-suspended members at all time to prevent the tactic of suspending all the other members to eliminate opponents.

I also like the Geneva Convention idea, whereby razing of cities and capture of workers is prohibited (instead of being captured, workers would automatically be sent to their civ's capital if attacked).

[civman2000]

declare world war ! Just doesnt sound right....

[Switch]

I agree with a lot of this. However, I don't think the names should be used. How about instead of Kyoto Protocol, it's called something generic, that would work on any planet that spoke english, like anti-pollution protocal, except not so crappy sounding; instead of Geneva convention, it could be called War-time humanitarianism; etc.

Why do I say this? 'Cause Civ3 wasn't made to copy our history, but to allow us to create our own. Using the same names as in real life (when related to a city, or any location) would go against that. I say when related to a city or location because otherwise we'd have to change the name of the UN or most other wonders and such.

[Andrew_Jay]

Treaties could just be named after a city in the empire of the civ who proposes it. I think in Civ2 when all the other civs would sign agreements about containing your agression, those agreements would be named after a city.

[Pythagoras]

I think the general concept of 'group treaties/agreements/pacts' much like EU except better, should be implemented. Group defense pacts especially where diplomacy is done at the group and not the national level.

[ckweb]

I like the changes to the UN proposed by SeferKoheleth and others in this thread. Here my thoughts:

Disable Diplomatic Victory -- In reality, being Secretariat-General is hardly an indication of cultural, diplomatic, or military strength of the nation where the Secretariat-General hails from. In fact, it is almost the precise opposite. Usually the Secretariat comes from a smaller nation. Moreover, the Secretariat does not wield enormous power or anything. He's almost a figurehead. The military and diplomatic power of the UN stems from the Security Council and by serving as a forum for world opinion.

In agreement with others, I'd like to see the UN open up new treaty options. I particularly like the following:

Anti-Pollution Treaty (i.e. Kyoto) -- I like the 50% reduction in pollution idea but there should also be certain requirements on the signees, i.e. they must sell all Coal Plants or they must reforest a certain number of squares or something along the lines of what "mwaf" wrote.

Anti-Slavery Treaty -- Great Idea! Foreign workers are returned to their civilization or in the event their civilization has been destroyed, they "join" the nearest city.

Rules of War Convention (Geneva) -- Great Idea! Cannot capture foreign workers! Cannot Raze cities!

Nuclear Disarmament -- I disagree with the all civs declare war on the civ idea. Instead, the nuclear disarmament and anti-proliferation treaty should be that all civs are barred from building nuclear weapons. If they build weapons, world opinion moves against them to much the same degree as breaking a mutual protection pact.

Also -- I think infantry should have the ability to lay (and destroy) anti-personnel mines, which would damage any foreign units that enter your territory without a right of passage agreement. If this capability were added, the UN could then have an Anti-Personnel Mines Treaty that requires every civ with these mines to destroy them and agree not to lay them.

For any of these above treaties, failure to participate should result in all participating civs placing a trade embargo on the offending nation until that civ complies.

GATT -- I don't like the idea of -15% commerce for civs with the most resources/luxuries. In reality, GATT hardly penalizes the rich. There should simply be a 15% increase in commerce for all signees. Unhappiness is an interesting trade-off. Failure to sign should not result in a trade embargo.

While "Peacekeeping Missions" and "Recognizing New States" are nice ideas, I don't think they are practical for this game. I see no way to make them work in a realistic way.

I like Ijuin's comments as well; except the "World War" idea. The objective of the UN is maintaining peace and int'l cooperation.

[Carver]

Originally posted by SeferKoheleth
I disagree on GATT-- basically all sound economists agree that free trades helps everyone. It should function sort of like "Commerce Rates Doubled" in Alpha Centauri-- except that CIV III stupidly got rid of commerce income (which should be a great way to encourage non-war making).

Tell that to a meeting of Third Wolrd finance ministers. What the West calls "free trade" means nacsent industries in developing nations, which have less production and are thus less efficient, cannot compete and are killed. Meanwhile, the West continues to spend over $300 billion US per annum subsidizing agricultural production in the developed world, thereby also killing agricultural production in the Third World. So far "free trade" has been almost a "loose loose" situation for the poorest of nations.

[Pythagoras]

Originally posted by Carver


Tell that to a meeting of Third Wolrd finance ministers. What the West calls "free trade" means nacsent industries in developing nations, which have less production and are thus less efficient, cannot compete and are killed. Meanwhile, the West continues to spend over $300 billion US per annum subsidizing agricultural production in the developed world, thereby also killing agricultural production in the Third World. So far "free trade" has been almost a "loose loose" situation for the poorest of nations.

The economics are debatable, but I dont think the cultural detrement to poorer nations can be ignored. Of course punishing the weaker civs might not be good for gameplay.

[Nubclear]

I do hope that we wouldn't keep the same UN Vote screen that we have now.

"Hello! Would you like to bring an issue with the General Assembly?"
"What issue would you like to bring up?"
"Would you support a world war?"
"Against which civ do you want to declare war?"
"Alexander votes YEA. Cleopatra votes NAY. Gandhi votes YEA. Lincoln abstains, Catherine abstains."
"Sorry, no majority was found....."

Maybe something like Alpha Centauri, although not quite as futureistic. And also, this voting system of the majority of all memembers needs to vote yes, IMO that needs to be changed.

I mean, if someone abstains its just that: Abstination from the vote. They do not put forth a vote. If I were to put up an election, say Uber vs. Myself vs Abstain, and everyone went abstain and there was one vote for Uber, the Uber would be the winner because he has the majority of the two candidates.

[SeferKoheleth]

Originally posted by Pythagoras


The economics are debatable, but I dont think the cultural detrement to poorer nations can be ignored. Of course punishing the weaker civs might not be good for gameplay.

Actually the economics aren't debatable at all... free trade has been an incredible boon to the 3rd World... despite what the pseudo-Commies will tell you... just ask formally 3rd world nations such as Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Quite simply, the freest 3rd world nations have benefited from cheap exports like textiles and other production.

Ever wonder why all those protestors are all ALL whiny rich white kids from American and Europeans suburbs? Its because REAL 3rd worlders actually like American industry.

That being said, the industrialized world (especially Europe- which is 10x worse than the US) should stop socialistic industry welfare. But trade is still freer than it was twenty years ago, and the entire world is much wealthier (except the uber-dictatorships in sub-saharan Africa).

GATT=commerce bonus for all

[Andrew_Jay]

Your absolutely right ckweb about how ridiculous the diplomatic victory is. For some reason I didn't realise just how much so till now. According to CivIII, the greatest nation in the world today, and the winner of 6000 years of human civilization is . . . Ghana.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by ckweb

Rules of War Convention (Geneva) -- Great Idea! Cannot capture foreign workers! Cannot Raze cities!

By "cannot capture foreign workers" does that mean that instead of capture, the workers are killed; or does it mean that one simply cannot attack a nation's workers? If the latter is the case, could not a civ simply ring his cities with worker units, thereby making them invulnerable from any attack other than air or long-ranged bombardment? You certainly would be unable to capture the cities. If it's the former, is the deliborate destruction of what is considered a civilian population something the UN would encourage (inadvertantly doing so by forcing the destruction of these units)?

Perhaps the alternative is to have them expulsed to the nearest city. However....

If the Units themselves are expelled to the nearest friendly (to them) city in leu of death/capture, what happens when the last city of that civ is captured? Do the workers vanish (death)? Do they join that last city as population (quite easily pushing the city, assuming it can otherwise support the extra population via aquaduct/hospital) thereby choking it with extra population that it may not be able to support with food, starving the population to death?

The Geneva Convention-esk UN function is a neat idea, but I don't see how one could do it in game terms without eventually 'killing' the population anyway.

[Switch]

Perhaps make it so that, with the convention in effect and the civ in question a part of it, that civ can just walk through enemy workers, much like they can their own. When the civ is destroyed, the workers walk around and join the nearest civ that wasn't at war with them (barring a lack of friendlies, just join the nearest civ).

[ckweb]

Originally posted by SwitchMoO
Perhaps make it so that, with the convention in effect and the civ in question a part of it, that civ can just walk through enemy workers, much like they can their own. When the civ is destroyed, the workers walk around and join the nearest civ that wasn't at war with them (barring a lack of friendlies, just join the nearest civ).

Machiavelli your points are well taken but I like SwitchMoO's workarounds. I think they would solve the problem.

[N. Machiavelli]

Sounds good. Quick question because I don't have the answer in front of me (I'm wonderfully at work and my nearest copy of Civ3 is a 45 minute drive ), do workers have the pillage ability? I'm pretty sure they don't but if they do then you can effectively, with this UN function, have 'phantom' pillagers that cannot be stopped (your units effectively go over them with the work-around).

Also, I'm sure that this 'Geneva' function would also apply to Settlers since they, when 'captured' revert to 2 'slave' workers. If this is the case, couldn't a rival civ effectively move it's settlers through your land and settle in any nook or cranny they desire? If you say "move your units or I'll declare war!" they can efffectivly give you the finger if far away enough from you and settle with relative impunity.

Also, what about the common scenario with a AI civ having "that one darn extra Settler" lieing around after all their cities are taken? They are still in the game; after all, they still have a settler. You also cannot kill that settler, since it is now immune. If there is no land left availible to that civ to settle, the unit is just going to sit there, theoretically for a long time if it chooses to not accept your envoys as AI civs sometimes do.

The only alternative I see is perhaps making settlers non-capturable (simply dieing if attacked) either throughout the game or triggered when the resolution is passed. But if the former is taken, you now simply 'murder' civilians regardless off International Accords, and with the latter, you merely exhange slavery for civ's equivilant to genocide.

[Andrew_Jay]

I don't think a Geneva convention or anti-slavery laws would make the settlers and workers invincible. I think it would be more along the lines of when you sign a peace treaty, all captured workers have to be exchanged. I guess you would lose world opinion if you didn't give all your opponents guys back and they do the same in the diplomacy screen while negotiationg peace. So while you are at war you would have captured workers, but after a war, they would all have to be given back, meaning you would never have captured workers during peacetime.

Here's another idea though, perhaps after a Geneva Convention type thing when workers get captured they turn into a 'prison camp' on the ground, just like a terrain improvement. When their own people take that square, they become remobilised as workers again, just like when you find a goody hut and units pop out and the huts disappear.

[Switch]

Why not make it when you meet an enemy settler with the convention in effect, you just make it two workers of the enemy civ, as if you broke up their camp or something.

And no, workers cannot pillage, so that solves that problem.

[Andrew_Jay]

That's what happens now, a settler gets split up when it is captured. Or do you mean you don't capture the settler or the workers, but it gets split up anyway, so you can 'attack' enemy settlers to split them up and deny them the ability to settle territory?

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay

Here's another idea though, perhaps after a Geneva Convention type thing when workers get captured they turn into a 'prison camp' on the ground, just like a terrain improvement. When their own people take that square, they become remobilised as workers again, just like when you find a goody hut and units pop out and the huts disappear.

I think it would be wierd to keep prison camps on the front line. But it would make sense to me to have the captured workers held in the nearest city, and when the city is taken they are "liberated"