25% for U.N. ; Discussion - Page 2

Inverse Icarus · September 16, 2001, 12:12

there are a few thousand people in Antarctica?

thats a lot of researchers.

d_dudy · September 16, 2001, 13:24

i hope, like the smac council, that the top in population (and now land mass, too) are up for election, but all the civs get to vote on other things.

i'd like there to be a sec. general that gets trade bonuses too, but doesn't win the game like a supreme leader would.

XarXo · September 16, 2001, 18:03

Reading this thread, anybody thought in the enormous colonial potential that has Antarctica in Civ III?

This idea makes me think in strange diplomatic treats, like "these continent must remain virgin for 50 years" and similar, the inexistence of landmark names for continents and the borders of these landmarks (not visible of course, the map could be an horrible line drwaing!) doesnt't allow to specify zones with the computer, you can`t say "this continent must remain virgin" when you have already a city, or say "this continent is mine" when the other has a city yet. Without cities, you can't finger a territory.

Landmarks are an easy feature, esaily could be included in Civ III now!!

Grim Legacy · September 17, 2001, 04:01

IMO this kind of victory sucks. It offers a cheap way of victory in a half-assed game. I mean...25%!!! That's nothing. Such a meager feat should not be sufficient for victory.

Reminds me of the council in SMAC, which was unsatifactory as well. And note that dealing with the AI in the council meetings was utterly boring. The game just can't offer truly interesting diplomacy, and I am pretty sure that Civ3 won't either.

Going back even further...this UN stuff smells of MOO-esque shenanigans too. I'd vote to keep the two separated in this matter. :P

MarkG · September 17, 2001, 05:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
IMO this kind of victory sucks. It offers a cheap way of victory in a half-assed game. I mean...25%!!! That's nothing. Such a meager feat should not be sufficient for victory.

with 25% you get into the council. just because you're in the council doesnt mean they are going to vote for you.....

Pagan · September 17, 2001, 09:03

Influence in the U.N. should be based on:
1. population size,
2. economic strength,
3. military strength, and
4. usable (population friendly) land mass.

gremalkin · September 17, 2001, 09:29

There is the possibility that anyone on the council has a veto?

Might make things a little more complicated..

Christantine The Great · September 17, 2001, 18:03

I wonder if you can be kicked off the UN council if you lose your population. And I hope the council does something other than bicker over who gets to play King of the World.

Grim Legacy · September 18, 2001, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
with 25% you get into the council. just because you're in the council doesnt mean they are going to vote for you.....

I am aware of that, but chances are they will. If you have a mere 25% of population/land, you've probably played a very peaceful and culturally oriented game. The low military threat, but still decent production capacity you have will make the AI look favorably upon you. A small sniff of diplomacy added to this mix will surely render the chance of you being voted the leader pretty good.

I just think this particular minimal requirment is too low.

korn469 · September 18, 2001, 08:47

Quote:

I just think this particular minimal requirment is too low

Grim Legacy

whoever builds the U.N. wonder will always be on the U.N. council and the all of the other players who control at least 25% of population or land mass...so most likely all there will be other powerful civs that split the vote with you...i'm sure that it takes at least the civs with 75% of the population to vote for you before you would win, so it is an "easy" victory, but not as easy as you think...and if you raised the requirements that might mean there would be fewer civs to split the votes with

Quote:

I wonder if you can be kicked off the UN council if you lose your population.

well seeing as only the player who built the U.N. wonder has a permanent seat on the U.N. council then i would say that most definantly you can get kicked off of the council for losing either territory, or population, or the city that the U.N. wonder is in

dennis580 · September 18, 2001, 12:23

Another thing is I feel the Barbarians will be much, much, much more powerful then they were in Civ 2 so this will hurt the chances of having more then 1 or 2 members even more.

Grim Legacy · September 19, 2001, 05:21

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469

Grim Legacy

whoever builds the U.N. wonder will always be on the U.N. council and the all of the other players who control at least 25% of population or land mass...so most likely all there will be other powerful civs that split the vote with you...i'm sure that it takes at least the civs with 75% of the population to vote for you before you would win, so it is an "easy" victory, but not as easy as you think...and if you raised the requirements that might mean there would be fewer civs to split the votes with

Hm yeah perhaps you are right in that raising the population/territory minimum is not the best way to go. Rather, winning this way should only be feasible in extreme cases: only when you get voted for secretary with 90% or more of the world's population (repr. by civs) for example.

And building the bl00dy UN wonder better be a huge effort!

aaglo · September 19, 2001, 05:32

But what if you built the UN wonder, and you are the only civ, who has over 25% of population and territory? Can you vote yourself to be the leader, or did I miss something?

JellyDonut · September 19, 2001, 09:35

Quote:

Originally posted by aaglo
But what if you built the UN wonder, and you are the only civ, who has over 25% of population and territory? Can you vote yourself to be the leader, or did I miss something?

I think we have to go back to TechWins's point that maybe all or at least most of the civs can vote, but only those who have over 25% of the population or territory or built it can be elected.

This is probably the way to go, since if all civs on the UN could be elected, they would all vote for themselves.

The population/territory requirement is good, because you can gain territory by being warlike or peaceful (cultural).

I wonder if you can do this victory on OCC...

korn469 · September 19, 2001, 12:04

Quote:

all or at least most of the civs can vote, but only those who have over 25% of the population or territory or built it can be elected.

exactly, only those civs on the U.N. council can be elected U.N. Secretary General, but all civs get to vote,

and yes you could win this way in an OCC if you civ builds the U.N. wonder then you can convince the other civs to vote for you

Master Marcus · September 19, 2001, 19:11

...and I'm eager to see how hard it would be to convince some allied civs to vote for you. At least that part was well-balanced in the Smac council & diplomatic engine. Anyway that U.N. dilemna happens at the end of a long campaign , when either you control 25%++ territory and/or total world pop, that means also you're very near from another kind of victory such as the cultural one ( majestrix city ) . Unless the latter would be easier to achieve , even before the 20th century?

WTE_OzWolf · September 19, 2001, 20:07

Gotta love it:

Australia - 7.7million sq. km, 19 million people
India - 3.3 million sq. km, 1 billion people.

Half the land mass, 50 times the population