United Nations?

Daz · February 3, 2003, 07:28

Why cant I build United Nations? I have discovered Fission (or wass it something else) but I don't get it on the build list.

Once I get to know HOW to build it... should I build it?

Thanks...

Nym · February 3, 2003, 07:52

You should have allowed the diplomatic victory to be able to build the UN.
If you can build the UN, you should build it to control it. If you have a (very) good reputation, you can win the vote. If you do not, you can avoid the vote to happen.

Daz · February 3, 2003, 08:03

ACK, right. I have unchecked diplomatic victory. Thanks for reminding me.

PS. I hate diplomacy...

pedrojedi · February 4, 2003, 20:33

I remember unchecking the diplomacy victory in my games and still being able to build the UN. Or not?

Damn, the aging comes...

Centauri18 · February 4, 2003, 20:48

Diplomatic victory sucks. I wipe out a few civs and then they vote for that b!tch Catherine. It sucks.

Catt · February 4, 2003, 21:26

I believe everyone should play the game in the way that is most entertaining for them, so obviously feel free to turn of diplo victory or do anything else with your SP game.

But may I suggest that playing with diplo victory enabled presents you with an additional challenge? And that playing with diplo victory enabled and avoiding the "UN exploits" available presents a greater challenge. With the threat of an AI diplo victory, you are forced to: (1) mind your reputation and manage AI attitudes; and/or (2) be da*n sure that you build the UN and can squelch a vote. Even if you refuse to win via a UN vote, isn't playing under the threat of an AI winning vote more challenging and thought-provoking?

Catt

Alex · February 5, 2003, 12:06

Catt:

Those are exactly my thoughts.

Quintrala · February 6, 2003, 21:47

I believe that the UN should do something else than allow a diplomatic victory, I don't know but a feel that the UN in Civ2 was more important as a wonder than in Civ3.

I miss the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty

pedrojedi · February 6, 2003, 22:26

Quote:

I believe that the UN should do something else than allow a diplomatic victory, I don't know but a feel that the UN in Civ2 was more important as a wonder than in Civ3.

I think it became more "balanced". In both Civs, it's a most powerful weapon in the hands of the trained leader. Of course, it's use in Civ2 didn't require much practice:

"Uh, the war started earlier than I wanted. No problem, let's stall for a few more turns... HEY, YOU, STOP THE WAR! NOW!"

In Civ3 it allows the game to end right there, with a simple UN reunion! If the leader knows a little of diplomacy and gift-handing, it's a secure victory!! It's more obvious powerful use is balanced with a difficult process of diplomacy with the other soon-to-be-beaten-a-lot leaders:

"Hey, take this. No, no, I'm just givin' it to you, no attachments at all. Just remember me in, uh, I don't know, 5 years, at our usual reunion to elect a world leader."

PS: I suck doing it, but admire anyone who can get the way with it.

Quote:

I miss the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty

Well, just choose "Religious" and you'll have a Statue of Liberty, somewhat less powerful, but still very good. I LOVE anarchy-free change of governments. And the Eiffel Tower, well... I never cared for other world leaders' opinions about me, so I still go to their land and just kick their sorry buttocks until it get sored and bloody. Then I kick some more. And then I make peace and ask them to give me all that they have. And I kick them more. And the Circle of Life goes on.

Alex · February 7, 2003, 10:08

The UN in Civ3 should be like the Planetary Council in SMAC.

Stuie · February 7, 2003, 11:14

Unfortunately, the best we can do is crack open the editor and add to the UN's function. I gave it the "Reduce War Weariness" (peacekeeping) and "Increase Trade" for host city (foreign diplomats and such come to town) abilities. That way it isn't a complete waste to build when you're not going for a diplo victory.

wilbill · February 7, 2003, 15:20

Stuie, shouldn't it increase war weariness rather than decrease. The UN's function is to shorten wars, not lengthen them.

Stuie · February 7, 2003, 15:24

No, it's more like having a UN mandate to conduct your war, so the public is more forgiving if it drags on a little.

sevencubed · February 7, 2003, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Centauri18
Diplomatic victory sucks. I wipe out a few civs and then they vote for that b!tch Catherine. It sucks.

Diplomatic victory sucks because it is most unrealistic. The country of the Secretary General of the UN has NEVER been the leader of our world (that is at the time he was the Secretary General).

wilbill · February 7, 2003, 20:00

With the fairly limited diplomatic game Civ 3 contains, the election is probably as good a way as any to determine a diplomatic winner. While it's true that in "our" world, the Secretary General isn't the leader (usually you can't even pronounce his name), in the "Civ 3 World" he wins the game. Diplomatic victory is either part of the challenge or an annoyance to be switched off. It's neither good nor bad.

Alex · February 8, 2003, 12:20

Quote:

Originally posted by sevencubed

Diplomatic victory sucks because it is most unrealistic. The country of the Secretary General of the UN has NEVER been the leader of our world (that is at the time he was the Secretary General).

remember, it's just a game.

WarpStorm · February 8, 2003, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by sevencubed
Diplomatic victory sucks because it is most unrealistic. The country of the Secretary General of the UN has NEVER been the leader of our world (that is at the time he was the Secretary General).

So, go into the scripts.txt file and change the message to something like "Vote for the Supreme and Unquestioned Ruler of Earth For All Time".

sevencubed · February 8, 2003, 19:22

Alexnm and wilbill, i will agree with both of you, its a game and it's neither good nor bad. It's just that I like to see this game apart from a strategy point of view, a bit of simulation as well when it comes to certain concepts of the gameplay.

WarpStorm · February 8, 2003, 20:23

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
So, go into the scripts.txt file and change the message to something like "Vote for the Supreme and Unquestioned Ruler of Earth For All Time".

And here is a file that does just that.

mrboo123 · February 9, 2003, 15:13

I think a BETTER way of useing the UN is, there the civ that builds it is ALREADY part of the Security Council, and get to choices whos part of it (2 for tiny, 3 for small, 4 for sanrtad, 5 for lagre, and 6 for huge.) and get to boot out the other civ out of the council, WITH the ok from the Secretary-General, (which yes, you can conives & "conives" him,) and each civ will have they own runners (ex, Kofi for the Zulus, [becease I think thats the closest to Ghana,]) and they'll be abilt to do all the neat thing that the do today (foriegn aid, peacekeeping, give besseing for war, etc...)

Naiveplayer · February 9, 2003, 20:43

The United Nations is pretty dumb in Civilization 3 IMO. The UN was built for world peace; yet, when you build it, for warmongers, it is like a stamp of war. You can break treaties and ROPs and do whatever you want and not worry because the other civ has the power of stopping your fun.

mrboo123 · February 10, 2003, 08:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Naiveplayer
The United Nations is pretty dumb in Civilization 3 IMO. The UN was built for world peace; yet, when you build it, for warmongers, it is like a stamp of war. You can break treaties and ROPs and do whatever you want and not worry because the other civ has the power of stopping your fun.

I liked it, now, I just build it so they don't get it (In civ2, I had a reason for the buliders, like me, to look fowrad too...)

wilbill · February 10, 2003, 11:47

What about a diplomatic victory? Is that not a reason to build it?

Nym · February 10, 2003, 13:17

Quote:

Originally posted by 123john321

I liked it, now, I just build it so they don't get it (In civ2, I had a reason for the buliders, like me, to look fowrad too...)

Exactly the same.

Vercingettyrex · February 10, 2003, 17:38

It would be nice to have a SMAC thing where there are several issues that the world community might vote on when the UN is built.

Suggestions

1.) International condemnation of a state if it uses Nuclear weapons and resulting univesal war/trade sanctions against said state.
2.) International condemnation of a state if it raises a city to the ground and resulting universal war/trade sanctions against said state.
3.) World wide trade agreement allowing all excess luxury resources to be trade equally and freely amongst partner nations.
4.) Setting up of a world wide bank. Everybody pays a dividend to the bank. A loan + interest can then be negotiated from the UN.
5.) War resolutions. UN members can ask countries at war to stop fighting, with a small chance that they may actually do so. Further a UN force which can be airlifted in under UN vote and composed of UN troops donated by delegates. UN troops have a light blue colour and are controlled by the owner of the UN. They have no attack value but have a defence value.

WarpStorm · February 10, 2003, 18:01

The thing is that, unlike SMAC, the UN in Civ3 is a way to end the game now, rather than extend it. I usually use it that way if I haven't been too much of a bad boy.

mrboo123 · February 11, 2003, 08:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Vercingettyrex
It would be nice to have a SMAC thing where there are several issues that the world community might vote on when the UN is built.

Suggestions

1.) International condemnation of a state if it uses Nuclear weapons and resulting univesal war/trade sanctions against said state.
2.) International condemnation of a state if it raises a city to the ground and resulting universal war/trade sanctions against said state.
3.) World wide trade agreement allowing all excess luxury resources to be trade equally and freely amongst partner nations.
4.) Setting up of a world wide bank. Everybody pays a dividend to the bank. A loan + interest can then be negotiated from the UN.
5.) War resolutions. UN members can ask countries at war to stop fighting, with a small chance that they may actually do so. Further a UN force which can be airlifted in under UN vote and composed of UN troops donated by delegates. UN troops have a light blue colour and are controlled by the owner of the UN. They have no attack value but have a defence value.

I didn't I said some thing like that? (By the way I DO agree with you...) :

Quote:

Originally posted by me.
I think a BETTER way of useing the UN is, there the civ that builds it is ALREADY part of the Security Council, and get to choices whos part of it (2 for tiny, 3 for small, 4 for sanrtad, 5 for lagre, and 6 for huge.) and get to boot out the other civ out of the council, WITH the ok from the Secretary-General, (which yes, you can conives & "conives" him,) and each civ will have they own runners (ex, Kofi for the Zulus, [becease I think thats the closest to Ghana,]) and they'll be abilt to do all the neat thing that the do today (foriegn aid, peacekeeping, give besseing for war, etc...)