Civ 4 - the list of ideas for Firaxis

[Asmodean]

Well...we did one for Civ 3. Why not do one for Civ 4 as well. I know this is very early days, but I figure that once more and more people get involved, the project kinda grows on us. At least that's what happened last time.

So ideas...wishes whatever you've got. Let's hear it

Last time, we had the following categories:

AI
BORDERS
CHEATS
CITY IMPROVEMENTS
CIVILIZATIONS
Civ Mistakes
COMBAT
CUSTOMIZATION
DIPLOMACY
ECONOMICS/TRADE
GAME ATMOSPHERE
GRAPHICS
THE MANUAL/HELP FILES
MISCELLANEOUS/OTHER
MOVEMENT, SUPPLY, ETC.
MULTIPLAYER
PLAYER INTERFACE
RADICAL IDEAS
REGIONAL MENU AND CITY MENU IDEAS
RELIGION
SCENARIO/MAP EDITOR
SOCIAL ENGINEERING/GOVERNMENT
SPACE EXPLOITATION
TECHNOLOGY
TERRAIN AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
UNITS
WONDERS

I tentatively propose that we ammend this list with:

CULTURE
SCENARIO IDEAS
MODABILITY

Also, I figure this thread will do for now, at least untill we get organized. Then perhaps we can have a thread for every category, and if things really get wild, then perhaps an entire forum only for the list.

So guys. Post your ideas. I propose that you label your idea clearly, so that when we start organizing the individual threads, we can easily move ideas to the appropriate threads.

Originally posted by MarkG
for easier reading, please present your ideas in the following format

short up-to-10-words sentence giving the essence of the idea
single paragraph detailing the idea. be as concrete as possible, large ammounts of text are harder to read

Again...I know this is still very early days, but if we are to have any influence over the finished product, we have to start soon

Asmodean

[Shadow Dweller]

I'm hopeing they bring back a Relm/Zone of Controll. Hopefully the other nations wouldn't just waltz through my territory without so much as a "how-do-ya-do" IRL. Mabey this doesn't go for you entire ZoC, but for a certine amount of spaces around your cityat least...

[Solver]

Combat

Some generaly thoughts on combat. Overall, I would certainly prefer a combat system like in Call to Power. I know that many civ gamers agree here, and those who hate the CtP model basically just couldn't understand it.

The pros of CtP combat model are: it requires more thinking and planning, and it makes the random factor less of an importance.

CtP combat works in stacks. That is, if the city is defended by 5 Spearmen, and you are attacking it with 5 Swordsmen, then one battle takes place - with all 10 units in it. Likewise, if there's a single Rifleman standing somewhere, and you have 3 Cavalry near it, then all will shoot the Rifleman at once. This makes perfect sense. In Civ 3, it's possible to put a defensive unit on a mountain, and count on it to kill a good deal of enemy soldiers. This is ridicilous. My often used trick with naval invasions in Civ3 - find a tile with a defensive bonus, and drop 3-4 defensive units there. The AI will attack those with its nearby units, and you can count on each of your defenders to take 3 attackes with it, if not more.

In CtP, battles are harder because of this, and the unit classes. Some engage in melee battles, some are ranged. For instance, if you have a stack of 2 Swordsmen and 2 Archers, then, when you attack, they form two lines, with Swordsmen in front, and Archers in the back. Melee units fight each other and take damage, while the ranged line fires at those, taking no damage. Once the melee units (first line) are dead, then the second line is forced to step in the first line. Note that units that may have a very high ranged attack (like Artillery) still suck at melee combat. Artillery is no better at melee than a simple horseman - which, again, makes sense.

This approach makes attacking cities realistic. All of the defenders defend, not one by one. And attackers don't wait for a friend to die to attack. Of course, when attacking, you can select with how many and what units you attack - you may want to attack with 6 and leave another 6 back, although that's hardly a good idea.

Note that this combat system helps produce interesting results. The maximal stack size is 12, so the biggest battle includes 24 units. I have seen one 12 stack kill the other completely without losses, and I've seen 23 of 24 units die. If you have a strong defensive stack, and the enemy is attacking with an attacking one that isn't good enough, expect your stack to win. But, a battle of 24 evenly matched units is going to be close.

This also makes the battles more dynamic, as you watch the progress in a "battle view" window, showing the details of combat, lines changing, etc.

I'd be really happy to see the CtP syste included in Civ 4. It's realistic, it's tested, it works, and it produces good results. Even the source code of implementation is available for the Firaxis developers to look at.




That's just one of my many ideas so far .

[Asmodean]

REGIONAL MENU AND CITY MENU IDEAS

I would like to see the city model changed. As it is now, a city, once large enough, has 21 squares to extract food, production and trade from. And each of these squares has a "population point" allocated to work it. My idea is as follows:

Don't use population points in Civ 4. Use actual numbers. As in London has a population of 345,785 people. When creating military units, subtract the size of the unit from the pop. of the city. Allow players to set the size of settlers themselves. This would allow players to start a city with 1,000 or 10,000 people, depending on what the player feels is needed in the current game situation.

Do away with the idea that every square generates trade. Trade should depend not only on terrain, but also on population. Keep the food and shields concept. It's tried, tested and it works.

I would like to see production divided. The player should be able to set percentages in each city for production. So and so goes to city improvements. So and so goes to weaponry. So and so goes to public works.

Building city improvements should be as it is now. You decide on a project, and the city uses the production you have allocated in the city improvements pool to finish the product. How many turns this will take depends on a) Production requirement for the project b) Overall production potential for the city and c) How many procent of that you have allocated to city improvements.

For military, I would like to see that each unit in the game has a certain population requirement and a certain weaponry requirement. Whenever the player wishes to create a military unit, the required population would be subtracted from the population of the city. And the required weaponry (representing weapons, uniforms, back-up functions etc.) would be subtracted from the city's weaponry pool. If the weaponry pool does not currently contain sufficient weaponry, it would take a number of turns to create the unit. However if sufficient weaponry and population is available, the unit would be created instantly.

Public works I would like to see in the game for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it would do away with the armies of workers that we see in Civ 3. IMO the workers are too time consuming to manage, especially in the late game. The publiv works model is more elegant IMO. I would like to see a city specific version of the public works model. Have each city (as described above) allocate a percentage of production to public works, which the city can then use to improve the terrain around the city. For terrain improvements outside city areas, the empire should be able to draw on the PW pool of whatever city the player chooses.

Finally, I would like to see cities grow beyond the 21 squares. If the city is getting large, then the area that it impacts is also large. That's how it is in the real world, and that's how it should be in Civ.

Asmodean

[Adagio]

How about just copy/paste the old Civ3 wishlist?

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by ADG
How about just copy/paste the old Civ3 wishlist?

Too much time has passed. Furthermore, many ideas will be inspired by the changes to the series that Civ 3 introduced, so the old list is just that: Old

Asmodean

[Brundlefly]

Well, let me just put in a plug for a "land claim" feature as described in this other thread: here

[The diplomat]

I'd really like to see civ4 have civ traits based on player actions. For example, build x temples, gain the religious trait, build x barracks and you gain the militaristic trait. If you city improvements were destroyed and you fell under the limit, you would lose the trait. This would make civ traits very dynamic. Civs would gain and lose civ traits as the game progressed. You could start with militaristic/commercial, but maybe become agricultural/scientific later in the game.

[Japher]

The Diplomat: I like your idea. The thought of an adjusting, uh, structure like that would be interesting.


TERRAIN AND TERRAIN IMPROVEMENTS

Natural Wonders. Small percentage chance, when you build a town, that there is a natural wonder near-by. It would be cool to have them on the map, and you can build near it, but I think the map would have enough to deal with. Thus, just add it as a town/terrain function. Not sure what it would give, maybe culture points.

Natural Parks and Protective land. If you are going to be able to designate boarders it would also be cool to designate natural parks that could help combat pollution. This land could sacrifice shield bonus' for commerace.

[Jaguar]

Culture:

Sacked Capital Causes Severe Problems
When a civ's capital is taken, there should be more ramifications. There should be a great chance that a city the civ owns that is close to culture flipping will do so on that turn. Also, if a civ completely conquered another civ, then the conquered civ can come back if the capital is sacked. So for example, if Rome is sacked, the outer territories they conquered like England and Egypt will become their own civ again, even if they were completely knocked out of the game.

[Bonaparte]

I got an idea...why don't they make Civ 4 without any bugs!!!

[MarkG]

for easier reading, please present your ideas in the following format

short up-to-10-words sentence giving the essence of the idea
single paragraph detailing the idea. be as concrete as possible, large ammounts of text are harder to read

[dexters]

Provinces, each a unit, like a mini Civ, each with a capital, and each made up of cities, definable by the player, but it must be geographic in nature. Can't have provinces spread all over the place.

This, I've argued, can actually work to improve AI defenses since it can now recognize threat in chunks of cities/territory, rather than threats to one city. Also opens the door to civil wars, and perhaps civs splintering off.

There was a thread on this. If someone can find it, cool, if not, I'll find it this weekend.

[DarkCloud]

this link should work: http:home.att.net/~civgames/ideas.html

[DarkCloud]

And it does- there's the list that I compiled shortly after Civ III itself came out I'm quite proud of it feel free to add to it or to take things off it and make your own list

[Skanky Burns]

GAME ATMOSPHERE
City council over moving leader-heads

[MrFun]

stacked combat
I strongly agree with the others here on this concept used so effectively in the two CTP titles.
Stacked combat would make battles more realistic than they currently are in Civilization III -- I'm sure the guys at Atari can create their own twist/version of stacked combat that is similar to what was in CTP titles, but add some unique flair to it.


migration
I do not know if this would be too complicated, but if there is a simple way to stimulate migration through the progamming language in designing the game, it woud great, in my opinion.
Here is what I'm thinking the way migration could work in Civilization IV:

1) intramigration--some of your citizens will move from one city to another within your civilization, taking away one or two population points, and adding them to destination city, making population growth and decline more realistic.

2) emigration/immigration--some of your citizens will migrate to another civilization whose culture is significantly higher than yours, removing one or two population points from your civilization and adding one or two population points to that other civilization city that is the destination

as for factors that determine when intramigration and emigration/immigration occurs:

a) odds of your citizens moving from one city to another within your civilization will increase if they live in a city considerably less developed than the one they're attracted to (comparison of city improvements, wonders, and terrain improvement surrounding cities)

and another factor would be if there is a significant greater number of happy faces in city they're attracted to

b) odds of losing some of your citizens to another civilization depends on how much greater the other civilization's culture is compared to yours, and the proximity of that civilization to yours (overseas on another continent, or next door neighbor, or separated from you on same continent with another civilization)

another factor would be if you and other civilization have similar regional identity (European, American, so forth) or if you're more dramatically different


I'm not sure how you can program this new game factor, if it's possible at all. I'm also not sure how you would program to determine how often these would occur -- other words, not necessarily always, automatically occuring just because factors are already present

[Jon Miller]

this (for civ3) was whta brought me to apolyton

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I like the improvment of armies, and tihnk that Civ4 shuold continue with them (so no stacked combat except for armies)

however I feel that armies should get bonuses for using combined arms and the like

sort of the same idea as a stack

in reality a stack would take organization which was often in limited supply

there was a big difference between troops, and using them properly

I always thought of armies as sort of learning the concepts of organized warfare

also not having stacked combat adds some tactical parts to civ which has always been there and is fun (but not realistic)

it is part of the abstraction

it should still be TBS

I also think that it should be multiplayer from the ground up (just have a healthy single player game), but I am not really sure how to do this well

the scenarios that they included in conquests seem like a good idae (I will have to explore them more) in relation to solving the multiplayer problem

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

if higher complexity path is chosen (like in governments or units)

making it so that only realistic models can be chosen (or are useful) would be good

while there were lots of choices in SMAC, there were only a couple of optimised ones

I would rather not play a game of optimization

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I like the idea of subtracting pop to build troops

but I would probably have it so that it would subtract food, and if it dropped you a pop point, so be it

this would make the difference between building troops with small cities and builidng troops with larger cities

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

one thing that I agree with is that you are getting too many units in the game

lots of units are great, but they can slow things downa nd lead to tedium

and armies are a great idea so it would be good to increase them (I am not suggesting going to complete stacked combat)

anyways so my idea

military win give
armies which can only be made up of one type of unit, and can only be made up of 3 units

you can than build a SW or something like that to have (this is still in the ancient era), 4 unit armies

at the end of the ancient era, there is a tech that allows you to put two types of standard units in an army (standard means nonbombard or other specials) and have symmetry bonuses)

a later tech allows (end of renaissance) 6 unit armies

another tech allows you to put in bombard units (and other specials), there are also more symmetry bonuses (gotten by proper use of combined arms)

another tech allows 8 unit armies, and maybe an SW (towards the end of the modern era) allows 12 unit armies

this would all make it so that there are less units to move at the different stages of the game and cut down on tedium

make it so that lots of units in a square when not on a fortress or city will be negative (if they are not an army)

the 1-stack attacks and the like get a little boring

I also think that the concept of less is more should be looked at (especially to assist in making multiplayer fun)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

also an army should just own against a similiar number of similair units

and a combined arms army should own (when done properly) agianst a single unit army

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I think that there shoudl still be settlers/workers (still thinking in Civ1 and Civ2 terms)

I like the power that having individual units gives me

but it should be advantageous to have just a few, not a ton

like make it so that they have a seperate upkeep (like food in Civ2), so that there is a maximum (and an optimum under that maximum) for a given civ size

probably this also means that they should get faster and better as the ages go by

so there should be a tech that makes it so that your workers work twice as fast (There should be maybe 4 of these)

basically having 20-40 (or more) settlers is too many to be fun, having 5-20 is fun

make it so the whole game it is best to have less than 15

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I like civ3s trading system better than civ2s

I felt as a leader I should just be finding the paths to different civs, it was up to the citizens to actually do the trading

but one thing I miss is the danger of sending caravans arround

but what would even be better is to have trade routes active on the board

this would allow things like raiding trade routes and blockades, both seem like interestings choices to make

and that is what a good game has lot of, interesting choices (it should ahve little optimizatino)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

one other thing is that city guards have a very different role than troops groups

basically troops groups you move arround, to defend your territory or take territory

city guards are just suppost to keep your city free of raiders, make it more content in some governments, and the like

the only parts of the game where there is any cross between the two is the early game, where the city guard is a valuable portion of your total troop strength, and throughout the rest of the game when you capture a city (And need to leave behind defenders/unrest quellers)

basically this radical difference in uses should be used to streamline the game and make it so that there are less units runnign arround

I should not have to mess with city guards the same way as I mess with the army

also, guards are not going to be at the same level of training and preparedness as a standing army

one way this could be done is to have a produce city guard button

this 'structure' would be an imoveable (except when a mobilize city guard chioce is pressed) guard to the city which would automatically upgrade to whatever your best defense was but would have moral (or expereince) one less than the type of units that city woudl produce

you would be able to build this multiple times, and could tell a unti to become a city guard (There would probably be some sort of cost associated with this)

this you would not ahve to consider and bother with city defense except to build a 'structure'

this should streamline play enormously (when I am at a time of peace and know I will be so for a while, often more than half my military units are city defenders)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I think that Civ4 should be multiplayer form the ground up

while I rarely play civ3 multiplayer (it is not the best to do that way) that is still how I normally play it because I like playing wtih my friends

one possibiltier to make civ4 mroe multiplayer iis this

make it so that every game had a server
this server woudl handle things like AI and where everthing is
for a single person game you would be your own server

bur for a lan or internet game people woudl connect to the server (and the server might not even be playing)

make the two sort of independent

the idea of conquests was a good one, and something like that should continue to exist

but Is till ike the epic game best, and I think a lto of other people do also

massive multiplayer idea 1

one idea of massive internet play is this (can probably be done on the lan also)

have a game start on a server

make an AI governor sort of thing

and than play with simultaneous turns, with the turn thing set for some constant unit of time which is suffiencently long

have a password to enter your game

have different servers set for different speeds

and so you (and your freinds) can play as a civ on one server that is going in real time

and for the turns youc an't be there, you have the AI run things

so a server would just be running constantly, and you would log on and play some turns

but while you were gone it would keep on playing (AIs would control)

you could also make the time control geographically depended, like a given server could be set to have time stopped for vertain hours of the day

than the game would go on from like 8-12 on modays, wednesday, and fridays, and if you don't show up, you have a compter (which yuo gave orders to) play for you

massive multiplayer idea 2

this idea is a little more different

basically you start a game

and the server has a whole bunch of people who start at roughly the same time start playing at once

and it keeps track of what sort of land you have and the like, as well as ech you have and what date it is

and than you log off

next time you play, you log on again, but none of your last group are on right now

so the server sticks you with a new group

this group is at the same time as you

but it is a different world, made by the server as an amogumatino of your previous world, and their previous world(s)

and oyu have the same techs as before and the like

but of course alliances and trades would no longer be in effect

and it could be sort of hard to make a new world to fit everyone's empires in

I admit that this is a wierd idea, it iis interestng though

Jon Miller

[Solver]

The problem with the worker model is, it becomes too slow and too tedious.

Moving each worker by hand and assigning oders is too slow. That can become boring and tedious. Also, even when automated, it takes them all a while to move and carry out their actions - which goes far to make the game run much slower. Those who have played Civ 3 with 16 or more civs in a game will know what I'm speaking of - just all the Workers are enough to make it slow.

[Brundlefly]

I think Jon Miller has taken over this thread...

Got a lot on your mind today, Jon?

The point you brought up about missing the caravan/freight units from Civ2 got me thinking:

We have hidden nationality unit already, privateers. This is for carrying out covert military ops. Why not bring back caravan/freight unit as a hidden nationality for covert trade. This unit could be used for some or all of the following reasons: to traffic 1)illegal goods; 2) trade with a civ you are at war with; 3)provide a fascist govt a means for trade revenue. If any nation intercepts this unit as it tries to reach its destination, a reputation hit is suffered.

[Solver]

United Nations

Short description:

Various ideas to make the United Nations an exciting part of the game and playing an important part in the Modern age. Partially reposted from a thread I made during the early Civ 3 days.

Detailed description:

Generally, it has been mentioned by many posters that the United Nations, as it stands in Civ 3, is not a good concept. It merely has one function - voting for the diplomatic victory. Those who have played SMAC will say that the Planetary Council there was better.

I see the United Nations as an organization in which several civilizations participate, being the leading powers of the world. I hope that, in Civ 4, games with 8 civilizations will no longer be the standard, but rather games with 16 civilizations will be.

Therefore, I suggest two general requiremens to be a member of the UN:

1. Build a United Nations Embassy small wonder. Without this, you can't become a member of the UN.

2. The second requirement, if it was Civ 3, would be, I say, some culture per turn output. Maybe Civ 4 provides something better I don't know. The idea here is, that this requirement would separate the third-level civs from the most powerful ones. I don't think that military size is a good one, because you can be the powerhouse without the biggest military. And the civilization score tends to be too abstract.

So, if you meet the two requirements, you become a member of the UN. Then, any member can call a UN meeting, but there should be some sort of a limit. Not a big one, though, since it's late game already. Maybe, 5 turns minimum between meetings and 10 turns between another review of the same proposal. The UN secretary general should be the exception to both rules.

About the abovementioned Secretary General. Before any other proposal can be considered, the UN must have a SG. It’s elected by a simple majority (more than 50% of votes) by the members. The type of vote here is seat vote. Eligible should only be two candidates, the ones who have more votes than the other countries. This brings us to the subject of vote calculation, but let that go a little bit later. So, the Secretary General is an exception to the period of UN meetings rule. SG also holds a right of veto, both in the country vote and seat vote. I’ll explain these concepts now.

Seat vote is when each civ has a certain number of votes, calculated by a specific formula. Country vote is when a vote of any civ counts as one vote. Number of the seats a civ gets in the UN should, again, be dependant on culture. I do also think that the whole UN thing would then raise cultural priority for people. I think that the UN should have quite some power, and thus culture will be valued higher by people in MP games, because a crafty bargainer could use the UN votes to his advantage.

So, we have a constant value of n – that’s the minimal culture to enter the UN. You get one seat for each culture point per turn you have above the n-1 value. That is, if n is 250 (don’t know if it’s balanced, again) and you are producing exactly 250 culture points per turn, you only have 1 seat in the UN. If you produce as much as 320 culture points per turn, you get 71 seats in the UN. Let’s say this number is m.

However, m isn’t exactly the number of seats you get. For each Great Wonder you possess, m is increased by 10. For each Small Wonder, m gets an increase of 3. For each Great Leader you’ve had during the game, m is increased by 20 (will make the Leader more important!). These are the positive factors impacting m, and creating the number k.

Note: the factors for number k are taken from Civ 3. Maybe Civ 4 has no leaders, or has something else to add to the calculation. The idea is, that this number should be affected by the important aspects of civilization such as those mentioned above.

However, the negative factors are to take impact now, altering k. For each time you’ve used a nuclear weapon, k is decreased by 10%. Thus, a civ using much nukes just can’t be a major power in the UN. For each time you break a peace treaty by sneak attacking, you get 15 seats subtracted. If you declare war in negotiations, there’s no penalty, this only applies to sneak attacks. For each time you sneak attack OR declare war on the civilization you have a Right of Passage agreement, you lose 10 seats from k. This creates the number f, the final number of seats in the UN you get.

Note: If civ 4 features other weapons such as chemical or biological, then the use of those should also impact your final number of seat votes.

Yes, I know that it's not exactly realistic for the number of votes to change with your negative actions. This will also prevent a tactic I used often in SMAC to get the majority of votes - just go ahead and use chemical weapons on other civs, so that their population (and, consequently, the amount of votes) would get reduced.

Take in account that a civ in the UN should always have at least one seat. Even if the negative factors are more than positive, the seat number doesn't go into the negative numbers or anything.

Back to the UN Secretary General, for a bit. Being elected the SG doesn’t give you victory, not at all. To win, you have to be elected the Supreme Leader (better term, anyone?). You can only be elected as the Supreme Leader if you are at peace with everyone currently. Elections for the Supreme Leader are also by the seat vote method; however, you must gain 75% of votes to become the Supreme Leader. Note again - you can't gas around everyone and have 75% all by yourself as in SMAC, because reducing enemy population by atrocious means will likely mean that you are actually going to lose votes on your own.

As I said, the Secretary General has the veto right in the UN. What it means – if it’s a seat vote, then the number of votes for “Yes” decreases by 50%, giving the Secretary General a nice chance to get what he wants. If it’s a country vote (each country one vote), than the Veto overrides all those “Yes” votes, *unless* ALL the civs vote “Yes”. That is, if there are 6 UN members, 5 vote “Yes” on the matter, while the sixth one, which is the Secretary General, says “Veto”, the decision still passes. Otherwise, the veto is executive.

Among other proposals, there will, of course, be a possibility to elect a new Secretary General. I will now give a list of various proposals for the UN, but I think there could and should be more, ideas welcome.

o Elect the Secretary General (Seat vote, simple majority to accept).
This is what makes a new Secretary General come to the driver’s seat. Of course, the previous one can retain.

o Elect the Supreme Leader (Seat vote, 75% or more to accept).
This is what I’d like to see as the Diplomatic Victory. Should be hard enough, and close to that in SMAC, a better model.

o Global Embargo (Country vote, majority to accept)
Vote initiator can choose any civ to direct the Global Embargo at. If accepted, all UN members must declare Embargo on the victim civ. The Embargo can not be cancelled by any leader, only by the UN - the Repeal Global Embargo proposal. The embargo, in Civ 3, would mean no trade of luxuries and strategic resources - modify as applicable for Civ 4.

o Global War (Seat vote, majority to accept)
Vote initiator can choose any civ to direct the Global War at. If accepted, all UN members must declare war on the victim civ. Within the first 10 turns after the measure is taken, you get no option to sign a Peace Treaty. Moreover, all the UN civs are then allied, so signing a Peace Treaty first will likely strain your relationships. This one can be really strong... add something if the vote fails, I think. For instance, a right for the civ against whom the global war was proposed (and failed) to attack the UN members without a diplomatic penalty, or something.

o Repeal Global Embargo (Country vote, majority to accept)
A civ with Global Embargo on it is chosen. If accepted, the Embargo against that civ by all the UN members ends automatically.

o Repeal Global War (Seat vote, majority to accept)
A civ with Global War waged on it is chosen. If accepted, the war against that civ by all the UN members ends automatically – that is, a Peace Treaty is signed. The alliances are also cancelled, and there’s no diplomatic relations penalty for anyone.


Both Repeal proposals can't be called within, say, 5 turns after the Global Embargo/War has started.

o Expulsion from the UN (Seat vote, 66% or more to accept)
Vote initiator can chose any UN member. If the proposal is accepted, the nation gets out of the UN. In order to return to the UN, 20 turns must pass, after that the Civ returns to the UN automatically. I think this is OK. AI notice - AI should favor explusion of countries that are too aggressive in the UN.

o Nuclear Missile Decrease (Country vote, majority to accept)
Vote initiator selects a number of nuclear missiles. If accepted, any civ with that number of nuclear missiles or more than that must disband the agreed number of them within 5 turns. If not done, the member failing to do so faces a 20 turn expulsion, and there’s a strain of relationships - the latter probably being the more important penalty.

o End Military Conflict (Seat vote, majority to accept)
Vote initiator selects any two civs currently at war. If accepted, the two nations automatically sign a Peace Treaty.

Just a couple of proposals here, as I said, I welcome more. Note that you can make two such proposals 5 turns after each other: End Military Conflict, Rome and Greece. 5 turns later you can make another: End Military Conflict, England and India. Offering two same nations is considered the same proposal, and can only happen once in 10 turns.

If a UN member uses nuclear weapons vs. another UN member, a vote about his expulsion from the UN is initiated automatically.


Maybe some sort of a UN Peacekeeper unit should be added, but my ideas aren't too specific yet there...