A Simple Question About The U.N.

Aramis · January 7, 2003, 15:00

My present game is the first that has gone on to the point where the UN has been built. Feeling I had a good chance at winning a diplomatic victory (which I'd never bothered with before) I clicked on "Yes" when asked if I wanted the vote for Sec-Gen to take place. The vote was a tie: 3 for Hannibal (me) and 3 for Hiawatha, and 1 abstained. As it was a tie I fully expect to see another vote, but it is now several turns later and no new vote has happened.

Am I being impatient? Will it come eventually?

Or was that it--1 vote ending in a tie and I wasted all that time being diplomatic when I could have gone a-conquering?

If that was it, then I'm turning diplomatic victory off in the future while I sing "UN. Huhn! What is it good for? Absolutely Nuthin! (Say it again!)"

Stuie · January 7, 2003, 15:08

There is a 10 turn wait before you'll be given another opportunity to hold a vote.

Aramis · January 7, 2003, 15:22

Thanks. Good to know. I Don't think I care for Diplomatic Victory, but curiosity leads me to want to try all victory possibilities at least once.

Um, does the UN actually do anything else?

Wittlich · January 7, 2003, 15:24

Nope, that's it....well you also get cultural points because it is a wonder...

Stuie · January 7, 2003, 15:26

Not unless you mod it somehow. I've edited it such that it generates extra trade for the city in which it is built. Other than that, it's useless.

However, I leave the option on for two reasons:

1. It gives me the challenge of building it prior to the AI in order to deny any voting; if I can't build it first, I need to keep the other AIs either happy enough with me or mad enough at the other potential candidates to avoid losing;
2. If I'm growing tired of a game, it's always a quick way to end it (unless there's a tie, such as in your game).

CerberusIV · January 7, 2003, 15:36

I leave diplomatic victory on as it adds a challenge. I only allow a vote if I have got most of the AI civs allied with me against one AI. That is about the only certain way to get the votes.

I modded it to reduce war weariness - "We have a UN resolution authorising use of force so we're going to nuke you" - that sort of thing.

Aramis · January 7, 2003, 15:43

Yeah, it is more of a challenge, now that I think about it. Build it first and deny any vote-- that's a good idea. Since I built it in this game that is what I'll do, and go back to playing in the style I like (I get bored if there isn't a good war once in a while).

Lambiorix_be · January 7, 2003, 16:19

You don't have to allie against another civ yo get the vote. A few turns before you will create your UN you start being very generous to the other civs. You ask what they want for the combination of 'mutual protection pact' and 'passage agreement' and you give what they want. You no longer care if they ask a lot of advances since they will be able to profit from it. Yesterday I just finished a game like that. By the way if they do not choose me the first time. I create enough ICBM to nuke everybodies captial so I get victory via regicide....I did give them a peaceful option didn't I? :-)

FNBrown · January 7, 2003, 17:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Lambiorix_be
You don't have to allie against another civ yo get the vote. A few turns before you will create your UN you start being very generous to the other civs. You ask what they want for the combination of 'mutual protection pact' and 'passage agreement' and you give what they want. You no longer care if they ask a lot of advances since they will be able to profit from it. Yesterday I just finished a game like that. By the way if they do not choose me the first time. I create enough ICBM to nuke everybodies captial so I get victory via regicide....I did give them a peaceful option didn't I? :-)

Yeah... that sounds democratic alright.

Willem · January 7, 2003, 19:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Stuie
Not unless you mod it somehow. I've edited it such that it generates extra trade for the city in which it is built. Other than that, it's useless.

Reduces Corruption would also be a good one, if you have PTW.

Stuie · January 8, 2003, 09:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Reduces Corruption would also be a good one, if you have PTW.

Interesting thought, but I'm actually leaning more toward CerberusIV's reduce war weariness idea. I like the idea that by controlling the UN, you can more easily convince your population that you are fighting a "just" war.

Or... maybe both! It is a "Great" wonder after all. Should have some sort of teeth for the shield cost.

Aramis · January 8, 2003, 16:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Lambiorix_be
I create enough ICBM to nuke everybodies captial so I get victory via regicide....I did give them a peaceful option didn't I?

Ah! My style of playing! Lovely idea, thanks.

The_Aussie_Lurker · January 8, 2003, 18:18

When Firaxis finally gets around to allowing us to make some units contingent on certain buildings (as well as, or instead of, strategic resource prerequisites) then my plan would be to create a mod that allows the UN to both reduce War Weariness and allow you to build a "UN Peacekeeper" unit. Of course, this would work even better still if you could also sell/give said unit to other Civs

.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

P.S: The Building prerequisite for units is "officially" on Firaxis' Wish-list!

FNBrown · January 8, 2003, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
When Firaxis finally gets around to allowing us to make some units contingent on certain buildings (as well as, or instead of, strategic resource prerequisites) then my plan would be to create a mod that allows the UN to both reduce War Weariness and allow you to build a "UN Peacekeeper" unit. Of course, this would work even better still if you could also sell/give said unit to other Civs

.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

P.S: The Building prerequisite for units is "officially" on Firaxis' Wish-list!

They sort of have this already... you need the Military Academy to build army units...