How to fix the UN

[GeneralTacticus]

Another idea for the 'Geneva Convention' thing could be that captured workers are no longer free, since unpaid labour is effectively slavery.

Also, with regards to razing cities, there needs to be a thrid option beside 'raze' and 'annex'. You should be able simply to 'occupy' a city, meaning that it still belongs to it's former owner but it produces nothing at all, and the occupying Civ can build military improvements there (Barracks/Harbour/Airport/Walls etc).

[Switch]

Originally posted by 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?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

However, for this to be useful and wantable, there need to be positives to the convention. Maybe when you take a city there is less revolting citizens and less chance of it flipping back right away? a small portion of the previous civ's culture in that city stays with the city, so you don't have to worry as much about rush-building a temple?

The possibilities are endless.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Also, with regards to razing cities, there needs to be a thrid option beside 'raze' and 'annex'. You should be able simply to 'occupy' a city, meaning that it still belongs to it's former owner but it produces nothing at all, and the occupying Civ can build military improvements there (Barracks/Harbour/Airport/Walls etc).

I like this idea a lot!

Also this was discussed in recently in another thread, and a long time ago in another UN thread, but the ability to liberate allied cities. If you capture an enemy city that originally belonged to one of your allies, the city goes to them, and vice versa.

And this is one I really want:
After the UN, you are able to split up the spoils of war with your allies. What I mean is that currently, after a big world war, you end up with a hodge-podge of non-contiguous cities, with your allies having a bunch of cities in between. I would love to have the UN allow you to meet with your allies at the end of a war and have all the cities captured put into a pool and then split up so that everyone ends up with contiguous sections, kind of the way Germany was split after WWII.

[HazieDaVampire]

if you want somthing like that, just make them capturedable, but they don't work at all!

[Andrew_Jay]

That makes better sense, send the captured workers to your nearest city where they sit and do nothing till they are sent back with a peace treaty. The game already handles recognising your nearest city when you chop down a forest, or when you give a city back (I think, I know you lose the units if it defects, but giving a city sends your units back to your own territory doesn't it?).
I like that idea of handing out captured territory amongst your allies. Too often I get in an alliance to take out a more powerful civ, and what's left is a really odd patchwork of cities own by 4 or 5 different civs. Even more annoying when the enemy cities right on my own border get captured by my ally from half-way around the world.

[Switch]

Perhaps a way to slightly make that better is to fix the trading. eg. I have a city way inb Roman territory, with ~4 pop and good all aroundness. Romans have a city in my territroy, with 1 pop and crappyness for all within. I ask Ceaser to trade my city for his, my city is much more favourable, and he declines. If they fix this, good deals can be made out so that you have a single area of territory instead of a patchwork.

They really need to fix this in fact. How is 10 gold for 10 gold completely unreasable? The advisor "He would never go for a deal like this!" with a look on his face as if I'm a complete idiot.

[Indignator]

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.

Yes, they are, we're debating them right now . Anyway, I don't know where you're from, but Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong are not the 3rd world. Do you even know where the phrase '3rd world' originated?

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.

So I assume you were in Africa, and talked to dozens of people and they told you that they love America. I apologize if I sound sarcastic, but I'm just asking.

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).

And just who are you to say what European nations should do? And what do you mean that Europe is 'worse'? And where did you get that multiplier - your a** probably.

My apologies for writing off-topic, just couldn't let this one pass.

[Andrew_Jay]

It's almost on topic, a lot fo stuff like this got discussed pretaining to a GATT. But yeah, I don't know where they got that first argument (or the rest of them for that matter) Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong are interesting examples of Asian places that NEVER fell into the category of "third world".

[Changmai Beagle]

For Africa and views on trade, I would submit the reversal of position on the GATT fiber provisions. From the 60s to the 80s a major shift from (IMHI) tariff protectionism in an attempt to foster (or perhaps shore-up) isolated home-grown industry to pushing for freer trade so their goods could get into the market.

But on the other hand - just think of all the winter greenhouse employment and natural gas sales we could have in Canada if we enforced a "Canadian Grown Bananas Only" policy".

I vote bonus.

It's when we try to subvert freedom of trade (Canadian supply management, U.S. mega-subsidies, European wine lakes) that we shaft ourselves and the rest of the world - in my view even if nowhere else.

[Panag]

hi ,

reading the first post again , ... , Kyoto , well in order to reduce pollution , change the powerplants , you should be forced to have a new form of clean energy within a certain amount of turns , and if you dont have lets ecology , the counsil should sell it , or give it , ....

have a nice day

[sabrewolf]

coming back to a point mentioned earlier: kyoto protocol.

the idea of it is not to reduce PRODUCTION, but to reduce POLLUTION. it ask for sustainability...

filters for factories chimneys, more effective steel mills, cleaner burning, cars that don't use that much gas, etc. some european nations are allready quite far in this... without loosing efficiency.

the kyoto protocol should be something like a small recycling center in every city (less reduction as the "normal" recycling center). it could also make you more popular among other civs.

on the other hand not-cleaned pollution should give you a punishment... something like... "clean your fricking mess"!

[jsw363]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
coming back to a point mentioned earlier: kyoto protocol.

the idea of it is not to reduce PRODUCTION, but to reduce POLLUTION. it ask for sustainability...

This is sort of like what is being discussed on another thread about imporved Diplomatic options. In other games there are options for Eco-Treaties (like Kyoto) where nations pledge to reduce pollution by certain amounts. This is usually difficult to get the AI to do, but adds to the ecological slant of the game in a great way IMHO.

[SeferKoheleth]

Originally posted by Indignator
Yes, they are, we're debating them right now . Anyway, I don't know where you're from, but Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong are not the 3rd world. Do you even know where the phrase '3rd world' originated?



So I assume you were in Africa, and talked to dozens of people and they told you that they love America. I apologize if I sound sarcastic, but I'm just asking.



And just who are you to say what European nations should do? And what do you mean that Europe is 'worse'? And where did you get that multiplier - your a** probably.

My apologies for writing off-topic, just couldn't let this one pass.

The term 3rd world originated to describe unalllied nations during the Cold War (i.e. neither Western nor Communist). In common parlance though, it means poor, unindustrialized countries-- precisely what Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore were 50 years ago-- before capitalism, relatively free trade, and foreign investment made them wealthy. Note that I called them "formerly 3rd world."

I've lived in Mexico (born there), Bolivia, and Zaire (now the Congo), so I do know what I'm talking about you arrogant sh*t. Real third worlders don't protest globalization-- they want their jobs in the Nike factory earning $.70 cents an hour because its preferable to child prostitution or starvation. That might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

If you don't think the Euro-scum have worse trade regulation than the US, you don't know geopolitics. The French are probably the worse, but the EU doles out billions to farmers and has trade regulations so dense that only a few favored former colonies can get in.

[sabrewolf]

another off-topic development

Originally posted by SeferKoheleth
The term 3rd world originated to describe unalllied nations during the Cold War (i.e. neither Western nor Communist). In common parlance though, it means poor, unindustrialized countries-- precisely what Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore were 50 years ago-- before capitalism, relatively free trade, and foreign investment made them wealthy. Note that I called them "formerly 3rd world."

you actually wrote "formally"... that's why indignator might have been irritated

If you don't think the Euro-scum have worse trade regulation than the US, you don't know geopolitics. The French are probably the worse, but the EU doles out billions to farmers and has trade regulations so dense that only a few favored former colonies can get in.

uhm... i'm not really sure about that. yes, france is quite backward in free-trade-regulations, mainly because the labour union is very very powerful there.
but wasn't it the US who just taxed foreign steel products by 30%? doesn't the US govenement pay 300 US-$ for each milking cow? and yesterday i read that the american farming subsidizations is 3/4 of the GNP of whole of africa (without south africa and egypt)!!!

now europe might be "bad" too (if you consider subsidizations bad), but your 10x are massivly exadurated...


to come back on-topic: i like the geneva convention idea. it could punish bombardment (exept precision bombing), would forbid using foreign workers and razing cities...

btw: is there a possibility to know how popular you are in the world? i don't mean the "furious" to "gracious" things, but something more precise... i tested by giving otto 6 free techs and he still was furious with me (but i never attacked him, nor did i break a treaty with him...)

[Panag]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
coming back to a point mentioned earlier: kyoto protocol.

the idea of it is not to reduce PRODUCTION, but to reduce POLLUTION. it ask for sustainability...

filters for factories chimneys, more effective steel mills, cleaner burning, cars that don't use that much gas, etc. some european nations are allready quite far in this... without loosing efficiency.

the kyoto protocol should be something like a small recycling center in every city (less reduction as the "normal" recycling center). it could also make you more popular among other civs.

on the other hand not-cleaned pollution should give you a punishment... something like... "clean your fricking mess"!

hi ,

okay , ideas are coming , but , BUT , can they be put in the game , and if they can be put in , shall they do so , ...

have a nice day

[Andrew_Jay]

Japan has been an industrial nation for well over one hundred years, they didn't suddenly become industrialised 50 years ago and pull themselves out of poverty. It was one hundred years ago this year actually that they went to war with, and defeated, Russia, so actually they've been industrialised since about the mid to late 1800's. Korea and Singapore were never really poor either. Both being colonies (of Japan and Great Britain respectively) they did fairly well prior to 50 years ago, though to be fair, greater urbanisation etc, did occur since the end of the war.

[Indignator]

The term 3rd world originated to describe unalllied nations during the Cold War (i.e. neither Western nor Communist). In common parlance though, it means poor, unindustrialized countries-- precisely what Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore were 50 years ago-- before capitalism, relatively free trade, and foreign investment made them wealthy. Note that I called them "formerly 3rd world."

Actually, it is because you wrote formally 3rd world countries. It's cool, I agree with you here, they were poor (except Japan), and free trade might have helped them.

I've lived in Mexico (born there), Bolivia, and Zaire (now the Congo), so I do know what I'm talking about you arrogant sh*t. Real third worlders don't protest globalization-- they want their jobs in the Nike factory earning $.70 cents an hour because its preferable to child prostitution or starvation. That might sound harsh, but it's the truth.

Well then you answered my question. I said I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.

If you don't think the Euro-scum have worse trade regulation than the US, you don't know geopolitics. The French are probably the worse, but the EU doles out billions to farmers and has trade regulations so dense that only a few favored former colonies can get in.

Actually, I don't know geopolitics. In the original post you said that Europe is 10x worse than US - you didn't say anything about trade regulations or anything.

What pissed me of in your post is your post was your demand that Europe stop their policies, and the misunderstanding about Japan, etc. being 'formerly' 3rd world countries. In any case, you obviously know more about this stuff than me, so I surrender. No need to call people s***.

[alva]

whatever the changes made by the U.N. (civ3-not IRL ), for game balance, they should favour the smaller civs. As the AI starts to break in the modern era. Wich it does.This could be a nice boost and should make the latter stages of the game generally more interesting .

It would be nice to complete at least one game once

[Panag]

Originally posted by alva848
whatever the changes made by the U.N. (civ3-not IRL ), for game balance, they should favour the smaller civs. As the AI starts to break in the modern era. Wich it does.This could be a nice boost and should make the latter stages of the game generally more interesting .

It would be nice to complete at least one game once

hi ,

, a small nation with some favours , .....they could start to think that they can take over the world , ....
it would be intresting , to see a small nation getting bigger and bigger , swallowing other nations , ....
nice idea

have a nice day

[Verto]

Originally posted by Indignator And just who are you to say what European nations should do?

Likewise goes for the world telling America what to do. United States is criticized about everything, from SUV's to throwing our weight around, although the same people who complain about the US don't mind our foreign aid. I believe during the 70's or 80's, the U.S was giving upwards of 70% of the world's foreign aid. Not to mention that the U.S. has forgiven other nations of the debt they owe, or that the U.S. is the reason the UN is still around. The American people under God will run America, not socialists.

However, this is off topic. I do actually have something to add about the Civ UN. Certainly the fact that PtW will be 8 human players, there will be greater freedom in diplomacy and trade.

Here are my ideas, which I posted on a diff. thread: once the UN is built, players are given the option to join it. Those who become members will have 5 or 10 gp deducted from their treasury, which will go to a UN fund. The player who whens the UN election will have the option of building peacekeepers or improvements, or maybe pay for improvements that are relevant to any treaties passed(like recycling centers for Kyoto,etc).

If one country declares war on the other, they can petition the UN to intervene and restore peace, or something of that nature, and the peacekeepers will go in if the members vote to do so. Maybe add more UN-related victories, suboptions. Total nuclear disarmament(this would be viable only if the AI is fixed so it will build more than 1 or 2 nukes). These victories won't end the game, but add to your civilization's total happiness or culture, or add points to the end score.

And I really want to see "summits" or "conferences", maybe one every hundred years or perhaps when a new Age begins, where players can get together and argue. Otherwise I may have to start sending death threats again...