When does UN open?

mikezang · May 2, 2002, 15:42

One civ built UN, but no any election for Secretary-General, how can I take this action?

Lucilla · May 2, 2002, 15:54

There must be at least two civs being electable.

To be electable, you must either
1) own the Un or
2) control 25% of the territory or
3) control 25% of the population

If only one civ meets these requirements (because it built the UN), there won't be any elections.
Is that the case in your game?

Scientia · May 3, 2002, 21:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucilla
There must be at least two civs being electable.

To be electable, you must either
1) own the Un or
2) control 25% of the territory or
3) control 25% of the population

If only one civ meets these requirements (because it built the UN), there won't be any elections.
Is that the case in your game?

I believe there are always at least 2 civs (at most 3) in the running when a UN vote is called. The civ building the UN is automatically included among the candidates, but if no other civ meets the requirements for #2 or #3 then the civ with the largest population (or second largest if the primary candidate has the largest population).

Boris Godunov · May 4, 2002, 00:49

What irks me is that if you don't have Diplomatic Victory enabled, you can't even build the U.N. at all. Grrr.

Todd Hawks · May 4, 2002, 00:51

If someone else built the UN you can't hold elections. It's up to the owner to do this.

Jon Shafer · May 4, 2002, 00:53

Bah, diplomatic victory is a pansy way to win, if you ask me. Not that I feel that conquest and/or domination should be the only ways to win, I simply feel that it should be implimented better. "Build a great wonder, and you automatically have a 50% of winning the game that moment due to something we like to call 'diplomacy'".

Boris Godunov · May 4, 2002, 01:06

Ever tried the Diplomatic Victory on regent or higher? It ain't easy. Not at all.

Jon Shafer · May 4, 2002, 02:19

I never said it was easy, I simply feel that there should be a better way to win "diplomatically" than to build a building and hold a election to win the game. But I suppose anything deeper would require a restructured system of diplomacy, and we all know how much time Firaxis spent on that (

)... maybe it's just me but that seems a bit... unrealistic? Maybe? I don't know, I just don't like the idea much.

asleepathewheel · May 4, 2002, 03:06

I think the UN (NY) opens for tours at 9:30 am est. to 4:30 p.m. mon-fri. I'm sure the business hours are a bit earlier than that.

Oh, sorry

I hope they do work on the UN for the XP, I think it would greatly enhance enjoyment of the game. The way it is now, I just turn off that victory type. I just don't want to click that dialogue box every turn. Though it would be interesting to play a pacifist/builder game on the harder levels trying to win by it.

player1 · May 4, 2002, 07:05

Build UN, give lots of gifts and you have won the game.
Worked for me every time.

But, it so cheesy.

So I just build UN, and ignore elections. (no voting)

And then go for spaceship or world domination.

Lucilla · May 4, 2002, 07:57

Quote:

Originally posted by player1

So I just build UN, and ignore elections. (no voting)

And then go for spaceship or world domination.

I agree with player1.
Diplomatic victory as it is implemented now is just boring. The results are too easily predictable and - which is even more annoying - the game ends to abrupt.

A better solution could be, if elections only takes place once just before you have to retire. Whoever owns the UN will decide whether to hold elections. You can then estimate how likely it will be to win a diplomatic victory or you go for victory by score. The game will be finished anyway, but diplomatic victory would give you extra points.

This is still not ideal, but maybe other people have better ideas?

player1 · May 4, 2002, 08:13

I always though that there should be two voting systems together.

1 system) every leader has one vote
2 system) every nation has as much votes as it had pop points

Only if you get 66% on both elections you should win.

Diplomactic victory should be some sort of ALLIED victory.
So both you and those who voted for you should get bonus victory points.

So there is a reson why they vote for you. (they have won together with you, although with less victory points, since you are the leader)

Bribes, as it is know, should not be in the game.
You should get a prolonged good relstions with those civs.
And be trustworthy. No sneak attacks or similar things.

Boris Godunov · May 4, 2002, 13:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Lucilla

I agree with player1.
Diplomatic victory as it is implemented now is just boring. The results are too easily predictable and - which is even more annoying - the game ends to abrupt.

A better solution could be, if elections only takes place once just before you have to retire. Whoever owns the UN will decide whether to hold elections. You can then estimate how likely it will be to win a diplomatic victory or you go for victory by score. The game will be finished anyway, but diplomatic victory would give you extra points.

This is still not ideal, but maybe other people have better ideas?

Yeah, but NONE of the endgame is satisfying, not just the U.N. Remember SMAC and the ending? It felt epic, like you'd completed a great quest and that there was a mysterious, unfathomable future ahead of you.

With Civ3, it just peters out and then you win and you get a cheap dialogue box saying you won. Big woopity doo-dah.

player1 · May 4, 2002, 14:22

In fact I don't like diplo victory in SMAC either.

Finnaly when I became mayor military power, I was elected as world leader.

Two house voting system could nicely fix this.
1) most powers need to vote for you (leaders)
2) most people need to vote for you (populataion)
both at least 66%

lockstep · May 4, 2002, 14:40

Instead of a two house voting system you could also set the number of votes to the square root of the population number.

Alex · May 4, 2002, 23:39

Umm... the diplo victory is certainly cheesy.

In my last game, I was number 1 on everything (military, population, productivity, gold, blah blah blah). During the whole game, I never (I repeat: never) got involved in a war. I was always gifting the other civs, giving them gold and an occasional tech. I wanted to try a diplomatic victory.

So I built the UN and held the election. I lost. The Japanese got elected. With the majority of votes.

Come on, I was the most powerful nation! I could have squashed them all like bugs! (Ops... then why did I not do it?). It was frustrating. It was not fun. But I think I'll have to cope with these things whenever I play Civ3.

Unless they improve this diplomatic victory. Oh, XP!

Nym · May 5, 2002, 12:36

Can someone explain me how to trigger a UN vote ? It happened only once just after I build the UN wonder and there was equality between French and me ?

Lucilla · May 5, 2002, 12:38

IIRC, you get the chance every 20 years.

wohmongarinf00l · May 5, 2002, 12:48

the results of a UN vote maybe predictable at lower levels but i don't think they are at monarch and higher.

1)civilizations u have been at war with in the last X number of turns won't vote for u without major errr.....a&*-kissing on ur part.
matter of fact, it's major work just to get them to abstain...
X seems to be a rather large number but i can't fix it at this point.

2)civilisations in an alliance or mutual protection will vote for each other. no amount of gold/resource bribing will change this.
so if u have been peaceful at all times (neutral)...u are unlikely to get a vote.

zulu9812 · May 5, 2002, 13:57

I only ever build the UN in order to stop the AI winning a diplomatic victory. I never call for an election.

kimmygibler · May 5, 2002, 15:06

I have turned off diplo victory since my first game. That was the dumbest idea I've ever seen in a game. SMAC made a lot more sense. In this, you have no way of knowing who will vote for who so it becomes almost a random winner situation. Why not jsut try to win by high score or something if you refuse to start wars?

Alex · May 5, 2002, 15:38

Quote:

Originally posted by kimmygibler
Why not jsut try to win by high score or something if you refuse to start wars?

Precisely. But I learned my lesson. You have to go to war anyway, because the peaceful route does not compensate, and the spoils of war may boost your empire in many ways.

Scientia · May 6, 2002, 01:02

Does anyone know if the "approval rating" on the demographics screen (F11) is tied to your standing among the other civs? Or is this simply some measure of your popularity among your own people? If the former situation is the case, then this would be useful in knowing when to allow a vote, assuming a diplomatic victory is desired.