SMAC Style UN

[Palleon]

Hopefully this hasn't been suggested yet, if so, I apoligize, I'm still new to these boards, and haven't been able to see all the threads. But what I would like to see is make the UN a little more useful than just a victory condition. Let them sign treaties, maybe add in a little of the ideas from MOO3 like allowing certain members to join, group attacks and embargos on noncompliant nations, and stuff like global pollution reducing initiatives. Members wouldn't have to join, and therefore wouldn't be bound to their laws, but wouldn't be subject to it's decisions either. The only problem is that by the time the UN gets built, the game is close to over anyways. So maybe something else could be established earlier, like the League of Nations. But the UN was one of my favorite things in SMAC, and I think Firaxis should consider using it in Civ3.

What do you guys think?

[kring]

While it has been suggested before to have the UN more useful, I think reinforcement of the concept is a good thing. If enough people say something, maybe something will be added to it.

[Panag]

hi ,

one way the UN could work would be like the barbarians , they would show up when a conflict take to lons , with a certain control from lets say 6 civ's , given there are 30 in the game , 31 could be the UN , 32 are the barbarians , ....

and maybe you could give certain units to them or a piece of money , .....

have a nice day

[Andreiguy]

excellent idea,
after all, in the real world,
you don't win anything when you become secretary-general.
(though the US likes to think it thereby controls the world )

[Alex]

Yes, the UN SMAC-style is sorely missed. It was fun to try and bribe other leaders so they could vote for you. And all the proposals were also interesting and you could see the political wheels in movement. I remember a game where I was the richest faction and Deirdre came up with a proposal to salvage the unity core, granting 500 energy credits to all factions. Though I would get richer than ever, I opposed the idea because it would grant money for Miriam to keep churning her damned units and I would have to double my efforts to destroy her.

SMAC... a true gem.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Andreiguy
excellent idea,
after all, in the real world,
you don't win anything when you become secretary-general.
(though the US likes to think it thereby controls the world )

Actually, the US has never held the secretary general position at the UN. The only Civ3 nation to have held the position was Egypt (Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was Secretary General from 1992 - 1996).

So I guess Egypt wins.

As for the thread topic, yes it has been discussed before, but it's nice to keep it in everyone's face. I feel the UN and the Modern Age that follow are the single weakest link in this fine game.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Stuie
As for the thread topic, yes it has been discussed before, but it's nice to keep it in everyone's face. I feel the UN and the Modern Age that follow are the single weakest link in this fine game.

I agree, UN needs work, a lot of it. Just a boring victory option right now. hope they add to it.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Andreiguy
excellent idea,
after all, in the real world,
you don't win anything when you become secretary-general.
(though the US likes to think it thereby controls the world )

hi ,



, okay we are going to be with 30 or 31 , so lets see , the 5-6 on the top play the big role , , maybe we could have a screen , and some options , like ; these two civ's are at war , we give them 5 turns to end it , or we go to war against them , ...

or ; this and that civ suffer from pollution , lets give them ecology for this amount , if they cant pay it , then its for free , ...

have a nice day

[Andrew_Jay]

Since the UN comes near the end of the game, perhaps some kind of co-operative body that evolves over time; just like regular 1 on 1 diplomacy evolves with new technologies. Perhaps in the medieval ages you can have a "UN"-type council with your fellow cultures (i.e. a UN kind of thing, but would only include American, Iriquois and Aztecs, as well as other councils for the other groups). I don't know how practical that sounds, expecially since you often only have one or two other civs from your cultural group at most.

Another idea I just got, perhaps with nationalism there is also a council that lets you sign MP pacts between several civs all at once, plus other era appropriate international agreements. Free passage of ships through sea tiles for example. An anti slavery agreement could also fit into an early industrial age League of Nations/UN-type council.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay
Since the UN comes near the end of the game, perhaps some kind of co-operative body that evolves over time; just like regular 1 on 1 diplomacy evolves with new technologies. Perhaps in the medieval ages you can have a "UN"-type council with your fellow cultures (i.e. a UN kind of thing, but would only include American, Iriquois and Aztecs, as well as other councils for the other groups). I don't know how practical that sounds, expecially since you often only have one or two other civs from your cultural group at most.

Another idea I just got, perhaps with nationalism there is also a council that lets you sign MP pacts between several civs all at once, plus other era appropriate international agreements. Free passage of ships through sea tiles for example. An anti slavery agreement could also fit into an early industrial age League of Nations/UN-type council.

hi ,

there was a fore-runner of the modern day UN , the people's union , .....

it could and should be worked out in PTW , almost like the barbarians , that would still leave 30 civ's to chose from , ....

have a nice day

[Avahz Darkwood]

To be honest with you, I never even have diplomatic vict. on. And any reason for it IMO would be a good one. Currently its just an easy victory for a weaker nation....

[kring]

It is not an easy victory; esp. for a weaker nation.

You have to treat the other civs fairly in order to even try and win this way. Another factor would be your civ's overall opinion by the other civs.

Try being a warmonger and winning this way. Highly unlikely. Try being a backstabber; same odds pretty much.

It is much harder to win through nonmilitary means in this game then through military means. A halfway competent military leader can easily achieve victory with little or no problems. I have won all different ways, and the military ones were the easiest, no challenge. Try to go a game without starting a war and win. Not so easy. Try to win domination without war. Again, not so easy.

I typically play non warlike, but I do build up a large defense force, since the AI views small military as a sign of weakness and will try to bully or attack such a civ.

[Palleon]

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay
Since the UN comes near the end of the game, perhaps some kind of co-operative body that evolves over time; just like regular 1 on 1 diplomacy evolves with new technologies. Perhaps in the medieval ages you can have a "UN"-type council with your fellow cultures (i.e. a UN kind of thing, but would only include American, Iriquois and Aztecs, as well as other councils for the other groups). I don't know how practical that sounds, expecially since you often only have one or two other civs from your cultural group at most.

Another idea I just got, perhaps with nationalism there is also a council that lets you sign MP pacts between several civs all at once, plus other era appropriate international agreements. Free passage of ships through sea tiles for example. An anti slavery agreement could also fit into an early industrial age League of Nations/UN-type council.

I like this idea. But maybe to modify it a little bit, to fit it into a game world. Perhaps each continent could form a group, kind of like NATO. So if you have 3 continents in your game, you could have NATO, the Soviet Bloc, or something comperable. Could share a 3-4 way MPP, maybe the comps would be more willing to trade with you (They don't seem to give up luxuries very easily).

[Andrew_Jay]

Grouping by continents is a good idea too, though the main thing I was going for was some kind of world union earlier in the game. In SMAC it was necessary to have a good UN because if I remember correctly all you had to do was make contact with everyone else to create the planetary council. Probably the reason right now for the UN being rather un-inspired was that you only have it for a little while before the end of the game. That however is rather misleading since you could still have as many as 100 turns ahead of you when you build it, in my game fussion was the third or fourth modern tech I went for and now I have the UN with about 60-70 turns left in the game. Perhaps if there was some plausible way to put a primitive UN type organisation in around mid-game, it woule mean an overhaul of the current UN system. Grouping my culture, or like Palleon said, by continent could allow limited groups for a while before the full fledged UN. Having a full UN type council too early just ins't realistic at all.

Also, UN victory can be too say sometimes. It's almost a guaranteed route to victory if your on a tiny map. I was going for culture (and I have more than half of the worl'd culture, but not enough cities to add up to the 200 000 mark) but then discovered that all I have to do is be nice to one (seriously, just ONE civ) and destroy my American neighbours. Now I will always vote for me, Cleopatra will always vote for me and I don't care what the Romans feel like doing, they've lost.

[Cidifer]

Maybe if when you real a certain tech you can foun the UN or something like it then anyone can join as long as they have diplomatic abilities.

Then if you join you must take part in all the embargos and wars that they vote on, unless you decide to leave the UN but if you leave that should allow a vote on going to war, and you can't rejoin for 10-20 turns.

Also the UN should only be able to vote on declaring on certain occations. For example when a UN nation is at war they can call for a vote and it must be seconded, or when a UN member leaves the UN, or when 3 (or 4) nations are at war with eachother. Also if you don't help in a conflict or start a war that no one approves of you should be able to be kicked out, and that could allow you to vote on war.

However it should only be enabled in games with atleast 4 maybe 5 civs, also AI nations could be a problem maybe, there should be a minimum of 3 human players with no more than half being AI, or maybe just in games with no AI players.

[Palleon]

Why not do it like SMAC did? Allow the UN (or its early game equilivant) to meet early on, without the building? Whoever would build the building itself would get certain advantages, like the wonders in SMAC (the names escape me) that gave you extra votes), and until the building was built, certain diplomatic arrangements wouldn't be available. This way you still have incentive to build the UN (no diplomatic victory until than), but before that, you can still meet and stuff.

[Grrr]

Said it before, say it again:

We need the UN

[Avahz Darkwood]

Originally posted by kring
It is not an easy victory; esp. for a weaker nation.

You have to treat the other civs fairly in order to even try and win this way. Another factor would be your civ's overall opinion by the other civs.

Try being a warmonger and winning this way. Highly unlikely. Try being a backstabber; same odds pretty much.

It is much harder to win through nonmilitary means in this game then through military means. A halfway competent military leader can easily achieve victory with little or no problems. I have won all different ways, and the military ones were the easiest, no challenge. Try to go a game without starting a war and win. Not so easy. Try to win domination without war. Again, not so easy.

I typically play non warlike, but I do build up a large defense force, since the AI views small military as a sign of weakness and will try to bully or attack such a civ.

That may be, but in my experience, I hardly ever go for war, generally I end up using a diplomatic victory when I am on the verge of loosing a space race victory. So when I say easy victory I am talking about my play style. Before I even start building my spaceport I would have built a UN, then went for space race. Never allowed a vote to happen unless I needed it.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Grrr
Said it before, say it again:

We need the UN

hi ,

agreed , and it could work like the barbarians , ...

have a nice day

[mwaf]

A rather recent discussion on the topic: How to fix the UN

[Andrew_Jay]

So that's why the "How to Fix the UN" thread is back at the top, I hadn't seen it in a long time.