UN Peacekeepers

[Soryn Arkayn]

I think it would be great if the UN had Peacekeepers in Civ5, so that the UN could intervene in wars between Civs. I know that in Civ4 it was possible to impose a UN resolution to end a war between Civs, but that seemed too powerful and unrealistic IMO for a bunch of diplomats to simply vote and magically force two countries to immediately stop fighting.

My suggestion is the addition of a UN Peacekeeping force, which UN members could contribute units to, and would be used as a military intervention force.

Firstly, UN would probably have to vote on a resolution to establish a UN Peacekeeping Force, which would be step one. After the PK force was established, it should have a token force of military volunteers; perhaps unique units simply called "Peacekeepers", which would be some form of infantry appropriate to the era -- but probably not as a strong. They might also have ships, aircraft, and transports.

Civs could contribute their own units to the UN Peacekeepering Force, to increase its size and strength. The benefit of this is that the UN would pay the maintenance cost of those units, which would save the Civ money; and the Civ might also receive "diplomatic points" or something like that. A Civ could recall its units from the UN Peacekeepers, but it might take a few turns for them to return to the Civ's control. Perhaps in peace-time it might only take one turn, but if the Peacekeepers were deployed in war-time, it might take four or more turns. If the Civs involved in the war had units donated to the UN, I'm uncertain what should happen. Perhaps those units would become "inactive", so they couldn't be used by the Peacekeepers, but they wouldn't be allowed to return to the Civ's control either.

How the UN Peacekeepers would work is if they were deployed as a peacekeeping force, they'd appear near the conflict zone, and they would try to keep the two sides from attacking each other. So they might try to line the borders to keep the two sides apart; or if one side had already invaded, the PKs might surround some of the defender's cities to protect them; etc. The PKs wouldn't attack either side unless attacked first.

If one or both sides attacked the Peacekeepers, the consequences would be dire. The attacking Civ(s) would suffer huge UN penalties, and the other UN members might be allowed to declare war on that Civ. After the PKs were attacked, they'd no longer try to simply intervene, they'd actually attack the Civ that attacked them. The offensive PKs probably wouldn't assault the attacking Civ's cities, because that would cause civilian casualties; so the PKs might only attack other units on the map, not the units garrisoning cities.

In regards to who would control the Peacekeeping force, my first instinct is to make them AI controlled, but I anticipate that would be exceedingly difficult to program -- to have the PKs intervene without attacking either side. So perhaps the UN could vote on a "Peacekeeper Commander" to control them. It's possible that an AI Civ would win the the majority, but if the Player's Civ was chosen, the Player could take command of the PK force. The PK Commander would have to obey all of the rules the AI-controlled PK would, such as not being allowed to attack either side of the conflict; only to try to impede them so they can't fight each other. However, the PKs were attacked, the Commander would be free to attack that Civ.

I thought this would be an interesting idea to consider, because it would be more realistic, and might give the UN some teeth, so that they're a legitimate force to be reckoned with, instead of merely a council of diplomats.

[Marthieu du Blois]

Interesting.

1) So now UN members have to pay ~10 golds/turn to the UN casse to be able to pay the PKs.
2) Civs are obeyed to donate units or they get Prestige (suggested somewhere, means general relations boost with everyone) for gifting units to the PK force.
3) 1UpH! If the PKs line up, the two sides have to attack them to get through
4) Put them in charge of a crippled Tactical AI; if attacked, then normal Tact. AI. (treat sides as allies, they must know this)

[thefluffyrocker]

I like the extra suggestion of a fee payable to the UN for the upkeep of the units.
If you gift units it should make AI's more likely to vote for you in a diplomatic victory.

As for who should control them. I think units should always stay under nominal control of whoever provided them in that they can withdraw them from UN control at any time and also have to provide the resources necissary to allow them to exist.e.g. if a unit needs oil the nation that gifted them provides that oil. But while under UN control should be under the control of the leader of the UN.
The leaders use of them would also be a sign of their ability to lead the UN but their actual combat use should be defined by rules set out by a vote by all members.e.g. a peacekeeper force could have rules such as:-

-They are not actually allowed to fight and if attacked should withdraw but units attacking them would then have some diplomatic penalty and would obviously encourage nations to vote on increasing the rules of engagement further.

-They can defend themselves but not attack units.i.e. if attacked they can stand their ground and fight but cannot actively attack other units.

-They can defend a nation. If attacked by the aggressor they can defend themselves as above but if an aggressor enters the defended nations territory they can actively attack those units to drive them out but if they withdraw back across their border cannot be followed.

-They can be at war with a nation. The UN has effectively declared war on that nation and the leader of the UN can use those units to prosecute that war fully until that nation stands down and agrees to the UN authority.

[BlackwatchGuards]

I would like it, if implemented properly. It could lead to an interesting scenario where you play as the U.N.

[Marthieu du Blois]

I would like it, if implemented properly. It could lead to an interesting scenario where you play as the U.N.

Like in Rhye:
A new civ (...) has appeared. Do you want to take control of it?

[Namaspamus]

I think it's a good and nice idea. This force could be important if many civs want a strong UN and small if it's not the case, but there would still be peacekeepers. Weak civs would maybe have more interest in a strong UN and PK force, when big ones would at least hesitate.

Also, I never played multiplayer but maybe the PK could be controlled by someone who lost but still would like to see the end (and participate). You could oppose a veto if you happen to be the one who crushed him and expect a disadvantage.

[Namaspamus]

If you gift units it should make AI's more likely to vote for you in a diplomatic victory.

Or even automatically increase you votes for all resolutions.

[Namaspamus]

I would like it, if implemented properly. It could lead to an interesting scenario where you play as the U.N.

This would be very interesting. You could begin in 2100 during WW3 and by both force and diplomacy bring peace back on the planet (and some disarment). You could only make an active war if you have a majority at the Council for that. You would begin with a small force and very limited engagement rules, but leaders would trust you more and more if you come-between well, never outpass your mandat, and don't lose too much the soldiers they entrust you.

Or one could imagine a fantasy world were every civ has good and ancient reasons to hate some others, precise territorial conflicts etc...

[dstahl]

While I endorse the game concept of having a "UN" like world policy machine - it is bad game mojo to take away control from players by forcing them to do things. It just isn't fun to be forced to do things that may infringe on your specific strategy.

Best if this was policy only and if there were any UN units - they were under your control with a defense only (scout-like) setting.

[LeSage]

UN troops is a really good idea.

I dunno if I think player-led UN units would be a good idea though. I'd really like to see them AI-controlled, as the true third party they are supposed to be, and perhaps, defensive only, meaning that they cannot attack anyone.

I am not sure what role they would have on the battlefields, but having them just stand between two warring nations is not a good idea either. In Civ5 we will have ranged bombardment, and I bet the two sides would just start shooting at each other over the UN units, which wouldn't be very good.

We need to come up with an idea on what their battlefield role would be, but I think UN units should be added to the game, and if noone else makes them possible, I will mod them in myself. They should have a special infantry unit of high quality. The real UN troops are the best of the best of any nations' armies, but their powers are often cut around by legal and humanitarian restrictions (as should be!).

[Marthieu du Blois]

Or one could imagine a fantasy world were every civ has good and ancient reasons to hate some others, precise territorial conflicts etc...

Do you know the Inheritance trilogy of Christopher Paolini?
There the elves and dragons hate each other this way, and to avoid a second conflict between them are the Dragon Riders formed. PK.

Anyway, I haven't yet seen a really good fantasy mod (FfH-age of ice was interesting but not winable).

[Marthieu du Blois]

LeSage

I think that the PKs should be commanded by a tactical AI which treats both sides as allies.




What about giving spies to the PK force?

[LeSage]

Now I think you're on to something good there... What about weapon inspectors instead of spies.

[Marthieu du Blois]

Inspector: Spies that can't perform all actions.

But what about all-ability spies?

[LeSage]

I don't think the UN is spying on its member states IRL. At least I don't hope so. But spies with special abilities called weapons inspectors is a really great scenario... But then again they would also be AI-controlled, like their military unit counterparts, and no player in-game would get to see them... Weapons inspectors don't go in covertly to other countries either, of course, but with all the media attention upon them.

I need to think this scenario through.

[Soryn Arkayn]

UN troops is a really good idea.

I dunno if I think player-led UN units would be a good idea though. I'd really like to see them AI-controlled, as the true third party they are supposed to be, and perhaps, defensive only, meaning that they cannot attack anyone.

I am not sure what role they would have on the battlefields, but having them just stand between two warring nations is not a good idea either. In Civ5 we will have ranged bombardment, and I bet the two sides would just start shooting at each other over the UN units, which wouldn't be very good.

We need to come up with an idea on what their battlefield role would be, but I think UN units should be added to the game, and if noone else makes them possible, I will mod them in myself. They should have a special infantry unit of high quality. The real UN troops are the best of the best of any nations' armies, but their powers are often cut around by legal and humanitarian restrictions (as should be!).

I appreciate your support for my idea, but I have to take issue with the boldened section. Perhaps some nations pledge their best military units to Peacekeeping, but certainly not every nation. American Special Forces do not serve as Peacekeepers, nor do "elite" military units, such as the Rangers or Airborne regiments. And I doubt other nations commit their best military units to the PKs either.

Also, the Peacekeepers don't have the best rep since the last ten years, because of the numerous rape scandals. But that shouldn't tarnish the reputation of all Peacekeepers.

As for your issue with the PKs only be able to function defensively and the AI deploying them to block two warring Civs, I don't see how they could function any other way without them becoming offensive units. Yes, if bombardment is restored in Civ5, I suppose that artillery units could simply fire over a line of PKs to hit the enemy units on the other side -- but the PKs would still prevent them from breaking through and attacking them directly. And that would probably only be permitted for artillery and possibly warship bombardment; but if one side tried to bombard enemy units using aircraft, if the PKs had their own aircraft in the area, they would intercept and possibly shoot down the attacking aircraft.

Perhaps PKs wouldn't function only defensively; perhaps they could also intervene in battles in close proximity. For example, if a PK unit was in an adjacent hex to two hexes wherein two opposing units were fighting, perhaps the PK unit would intervene by bombarding the the attacker. And perhaps the proximity of the PK unit would cause the attacking unit to "withdraw" at least 50% of the time, similar to how sometimes cavalry units could withdraw from attacks if they were losing, to avoid being killed. The PK unit would grant the withdraw ability to attacking units, regardless if they were winning or losing, to simulate the PKs' intervention in the battle.

I think that Peacekeepers "intervention" ability would make them very useful, and should compensate for their limitations as defensive-only units.

[LeSage]

The UN forces have strong regulations about firing first. They aren't allowed to fire even if a bloke is aiming his weapon towards you, but only when fired upon, can you return fire. And then only to incapacitate the enemy and not kill him. Killing enemy combatants should only happen by serious mistake.

Maybe our Civ UN units could live according to the rule that they are only defensive until directly fired upon, and then they can go over and attack the units of the state that fired on it. I dunno how that can be implemented either or if it would work well. Or they could receive offensive combat roles if the fighting in their area doesn't die down. Something like that.

The UN peacekeepers in Africa have received a bad reputation, but as for the UN troops deployed by countries like mine (Finland), they are top-class. UN peacekeeping is the only way of getting combat experience for our army, since we are living in prosperous peace and don't have all sorts of crises going all around the world. The US, British and French armies have other issues to invest their time, effort and special troops and forces on, all around the world.

I know the UN troops are the best, for my little lady served in the Swedish Battalion in Bosnia and Kosovo and has four medals hanging on our wall because of it. They did good stuff over there, and it's a real shame that the deployments in other warzones have given the UN such a bad reputation.

[Namaspamus]

Do you know the Inheritance trilogy of Christopher Paolini?
There the elves and dragons hate each other this way, and to avoid a second conflict between them are the Dragon Riders formed. PK.

I don't till now. But I really, really like this scenario idea.

[B-29 Bomber]

How about including Demilitarized Zones? They can be created to act as a preventive measure to pacify an agressor. They would be a group of cities along the two civs' border. The DZ Would be a UN administered zone. Invading a DZ could spark a world war where nearly everyone is against you except the ones that you become allies with or signed NAPs with. So you won't be declared war on by everyone but you'll see alot of declarations of war pop ups starting with: The UN has declared your civ's border area a War Zone. UN Peacekeeping Forces(UNPF) are on high alert and will begin deploying into the area in 5 turns. Also UNPF units that you give will be under your control until they are put onto high alert. At that point they ask you to "send" your UNPF into UN hands. If you refuse then you take a major hit in UN support. If yes then the UN takes control of the units and they go to the area. If your the agressor then then your automaticly suspended from the UN. If you lose the war the the UN will occupy your civ for a period of time they will take over your military and a DZ will be formed between you and the victim civ. In the DZ the UN will control the cities UNPFs will occupy the zone. But other allied forces can help in this. The war that started the whole mess was just put on pause. The war can be continued with time. As the restrictions ease a bit, you'll get back your army then you'll get back military unit production then the UNPF will pull back to the DZ. The DZ will continue to be in effect until you reinvade.

[VainApocalypse]

That's actually a splendid idea. I think it would take some tweaking to the AI though. For example, it should only send the peacekeepers to regions that are being actively contested, so as to turn the tide of battle rather than just pointless skirmishing around some city of no relevancy to the conflict..

I do have one question, however. Where are these infantry and naval forces going to be kept when they're idle?

[Tabbris]

I don't think so, Peacekeeping troops are obsolete in a game like Civilization and our real world as well, I mean, think about it logically for a second, Why would we want to have peacekeepers in a game?
Peace Keeping has been a utter failure in the 20th century and it would only be a waste of time to even consider having it in the game, because what use would peacekeeping be in CIV? Espeically if the game is made up of only 10 really powerful countries and one of them withdraws troops and attacks another country, what use would Peacekeepers make?
Now, I understand if you said "Peacemaking" troops because then it would be understandable because then at least Peacemaking troops can actually fight when there is shooting going on.

[B-29 Bomber]

I don't think so, Peacekeeping troops are obsolete in a game like Civilization and our real world as well, I mean, think about it logically for a second, Why would we want to have peacekeepers in a game?
Peace Keeping has been a utter failure in the 20th century and it would only be a waste of time to even consider having it in the game, because what use would peacekeeping be in CIV? Espeically if the game is made up of only 10 really powerful countries and one of them withdraws troops and attacks another country, what use would Peacekeepers make?
Now, I understand if you said "Peacemaking" troops because then it would be understandable because then at least Peacemaking troops can actually fight when there is shooting going on.

Dude the only reason we're calling them "peacekeeping" is because it's what called in real life. It doesn't matter what something's called if it all does the samething. Also I wouldn't say they were a complete failure: they've prevented world wars which is the UN's prime directive.

[Tabbris]

Dude the only reason we're calling them "peacekeeping" is because it's what called in real life. It doesn't matter what something's called if it all does the samething. Also I wouldn't say they were a complete failure: they've prevented world wars which is the UN's prime directive.

First of all, There is a BIG difference between Peacekeeping and Peacemaking, To basically sum up really quickly, With Peacemaking, your allowed to shoot at someone if that person shoots at anybody, ergo, your making peace. In peacekeeping, You can't shoot ANYBODY unless the person shooting is firing at you, So if one guy is firing at a bunch of people in the street, Peacekeepers can do nothing.

I do agree that Peacekeeping worked in the Suez Canal crisis because it was applied directly to the sort of thing it's made to do, Protect a common international intrest.

But did Peacekeeping work in Bosnia? How about Rwanda? Maybe Somalia? I don't think so. Genocide in Rwanda is probably one of the worst things to happen in the 90's, and the U.N couldn't act accordingly, even when the Commander there was screaming about it, Bosnia was so bad that the U.N had to call in NATO to deal with Serbia. Somalia was also a failure because all the Somalian warlords just had to do was not fire at U.N personal and nothing would change in the slightest.

Peacemaking would make more sense in CIV because then, at least the troops your donating aren't standing around doing nothing, there at least trying to stop the fighting between two nations.

[B-29 Bomber]

That's actually a splendid idea. I think it would take some tweaking to the AI though. For example, it should only send the peacekeepers to regions that are being actively contested, so as to turn the tide of battle rather than just pointless skirmishing around some city of no relevancy to the conflict..

I do have one question, however. Where are these infantry and naval forces going to be kept when they're idle?

I presented a solution to that idle problem in my post. All UNPF designated units made by individual civs will be held by the civs. But the UN will have a small default force for limited actions. This one will be a sort of first response group. This is the one that will show up in the amount of turns determined by the pop up stating the UN is intervening into your conflict. Also if you defeat the initial UN force and defeat the defending civ then for 20 turns you will have to beat back the invading UNPF. And if you defeat that then you win at a cost. You will suffer a major diplomatic hit with nearly if not all civs exspecially the ones that chipped in Units. They won't declare war on you but you best wave that diplomatic victory good bye. Some of the more aggressive civs might still like you though.

[B-29 Bomber]

First of all, There is a BIG difference between Peacekeeping and Peacemaking, To basically sum up really quickly, With Peacemaking, your allowed to shoot at someone if that person shoots at anybody, ergo, your making peace. In peacekeeping, You can't shoot ANYBODY unless the person shooting is firing at you, So if one guy is firing at a bunch of people in the street, Peacekeepers can do nothing.

I do agree that Peacekeeping worked in the Suez Canal crisis because it was applied directly to the sort of thing it's made to do, Protect a common international intrest.

But did Peacekeeping work in Bosnia? How about Rwanda? Maybe Somalia? I don't think so. Genocide in Rwanda is probably one of the worst things to happen in the 90's, and the U.N couldn't act accordingly, even when the Commander there was screaming about it, Bosnia was so bad that the U.N had to call in NATO to deal with Serbia. Somalia was also a failure because all the Somalian warlords just had to do was not fire at U.N personal and nothing would change in the slightest.

Peacemaking would make more sense in CIV because then, at least the troops your donating aren't standing around doing nothing, there at least trying to stop the fighting between two nations.

Dude I'm going to say this one last time. IT-DOES-NOT-MATER-WHAT-WE-CALL-THEM! Also please do not assume that I agree with the UN in the slightest. All they've done in the recent past is wave economic sanctions at lunatic dictators. Let's look at the past to see what's in store for the UN. All the league of Nations did to Hitler's Germany and Tojo's Japan was throw sanctions and denoucements at them and the rest is history. Am I the only one who sees a parallel. Except Israel is the one getting the denoucements and Iran is getting the sanctions. Then of course the UN is getting interested with our children. They made a document stating "Children's Rights". Kids do have rights. They have a right to good food and to have good parents to raise them. That's it. Besides that does the UN even have the authority in this manor. All the UN is is a forum for the world's diplomats can nogotate conflicts peacefully. The UN has done a piss poor job of doing that haven't they. Now all they do is harrass MMO creators for using their name and emblem.

[SamBC]

First of all, There is a BIG difference between Peacekeeping and Peacemaking, To basically sum up really quickly, With Peacemaking, your allowed to shoot at someone if that person shoots at anybody, ergo, your making peace. In peacekeeping, You can't shoot ANYBODY unless the person shooting is firing at you, So if one guy is firing at a bunch of people in the street, Peacekeepers can do nothing.

I do agree that Peacekeeping worked in the Suez Canal crisis because it was applied directly to the sort of thing it's made to do, Protect a common international intrest.

But did Peacekeeping work in Bosnia? How about Rwanda? Maybe Somalia? I don't think so. Genocide in Rwanda is probably one of the worst things to happen in the 90's, and the U.N couldn't act accordingly, even when the Commander there was screaming about it, Bosnia was so bad that the U.N had to call in NATO to deal with Serbia. Somalia was also a failure because all the Somalian warlords just had to do was not fire at U.N personal and nothing would change in the slightest.

Peacemaking would make more sense in CIV because then, at least the troops your donating aren't standing around doing nothing, there at least trying to stop the fighting between two nations.

That's a lovely nomenclature you seem to have come up with, but I doubt that others will follow it, especially as the UN calls them all Peacekeepers. The UN defines Rules of Engagement for PK forces separately for each instance, and after the disasters in places like Rwanda they have much looser RoE than the only-defend-yourself ones.

Of course, if the UNPKs can set up a single line along the front of a conflict, in CivV, then being able to retaliate is enough. They can't prosecute their war without attacking the UNPKs.

[NobleHye]

All the ideas are great for UN army we need a spawning point like a base bitwin or near the disputed area protecting what the resolution were voted for..lets say oil wells or cities from attacks..sure they can be destroyed but if you are a super power then you dont care if u kill some UN man to achieve ur goal..its should be something like a cherry in the cake nothing so big to be afraid but yet so wanna be.

[FLB]

Thought on UNPKF

1. I agree with earlier posts stating that any troops "donated" should take time to be repatriated. 1 turn during peace, perhaps 5 during war seems like an agreeable idea.

2. To further elaborate on the post by the Finnish guy, any troops donated should receive experience bonuses while under UN control (whether or not it's during a conflict) perhaps every 10 turns they gain another level of experience. This might allow a traditionally peaceful and economically driven civ to build up reserves of veteran troops while never engaging directly in conflict. This increase in experience during non-conflict engagements can be considered humanitarian missions and policing. This would also encourage peaceful nations to contribute more troops to the UN.

3. As well all know, trade is most often the life blood of any civ. Attacking UNPKF can lead to the loss of economic relations with a significant amount trading partners. If, as noted above, peaceful and economically prosperous nations are inclined to donate troops, then attacking those troops would immediately cause the aggressor nation to lose all trade relations with other involved civs. This can be disastrous to any economy.

4. UN Forces should be AI controlled, as I can see there being to much room for misuse by human players. We've all figured out ways in the past to find and utilize weird bugs. The guys at Firaxis are more the capable of programming a unique UN "civ".

5. Does it necessarily have to be a UNPKF? Why not creating the kind of diplomatic framework to create unique organizations? Think NATO or the Warsaw Pact. If you're playing aggressively, you could create a war council with other aggressive nations to work together to conquer, or alternatively create an organization with stabilizing goals, with relaxed rules of engagement. The are no limits to what can be accomplished. Think: Coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan as contemporary examples. This would involve the programmers putting together a complex negotiating table. Dividing up the spoils of war would be complicated, but possible. These types of organization could be placed under player control, as their mandate match the ambitions/goals of the human player and allies, as opposed to those of the majority of UN Member states.

[QBeam]

I think it would be great if the UN had Peacekeepers in Civ5, so that the UN could intervene in wars between Civs. I know that in Civ4 it was possible to impose a UN resolution to end a war between Civs, but that seemed too powerful and unrealistic IMO for a bunch of diplomats to simply vote and magically force two countries to immediately stop fighting.

Amen--the U.N. has never and will never end a war, because it has zero power and epsilon authority to do so. In fact, as near as I can tell, the UN has never caused any country to do anything. It was created by the victors of WWII for the purpose of creating an additional patina of legitimacy for their international adventures, which it did fairly well for 20 years or so. Since then, it's become little more than a forum in which the worlds most evil regimes whine about minor infractions by the world's major powers, primarily the US.

[EnigmaCode]

Amen--the U.N. has never and will never end a war, because it has zero power and epsilon authority to do so. In fact, as near as I can tell, the UN has never caused any country to do anything. It was created by the victors of WWII for the purpose of creating an additional patina of legitimacy for their international adventures, which it did fairly well for 20 years or so. Since then, it's become little more than a forum in which the worlds most evil regimes whine about minor infractions by the world's major powers, primarily the US.

Your right. The UN has barely any power in real life, so why should it be an inordinately powerful "peacekeeping" force in Civ?

I think the better alternative would be the approach many countries use in real life: they just go straight to the country. Take Kosovo for example. I believe that NATO didn't bother with the UN before taking action. It should be like that in Civs as well.

It would be interesting to have a peace-keeping force in a failed-state (Yemen for example) or perhaps peace-keeping in a state that has become a haven for radical Islamic terrorists.

In addition, if we have peace keeping, why not emergency relief? Natural disasters happen in real life (the Haitian earthquake for example) and other countries help. You could send helicopters with relief aid to your allies (that is if the random events in Civ IV: Beyond the Sword came back and were used on a larger scale).

All of these would help to make Civ more interesting. Perhaps we could discuss emergency relief in this thread as well?

[Atticus Lowa]

Your right. The UN has barely any power in real life, so why should it be an inordinately powerful "peacekeeping" force in Civ?

I think the better alternative would be the approach many countries use in real life: they just go straight to the country. Take Kosovo for example. I believe that NATO didn't bother with the UN before taking action. It should be like that in Civs as well.

It would be interesting to have a peace-keeping force in a failed-state (Yemen for example) or perhaps peace-keeping in a state that has become a haven for radical Islamic terrorists.

In addition, if we have peace keeping, why not emergency relief? Natural disasters happen in real life (the Haitian earthquake for example) and other countries help. You could send helicopters with relief aid to your allies (that is if the random events in Civ IV: Beyond the Sword came back and were used on a larger scale).

All of these would help to make Civ more interesting. Perhaps we could discuss emergency relief in this thread as well?

You do have a "NEVER" Decison in beyond the sword, the UN has influential power to do things, it can't end a war, but it can pressure the end of it, if the majority of nations say YES to end a war, the competing nations are forced to end it or suffer international tensions that could eventually cripple their economies.

The UN Works in the civ series because civs are so massive the amalgation of voting power makes major resolutions easier. in real life the UN doesn't work because no one wants it too, especially the US (note: see iraq war).

your people are upset at you for refusing resolutions thats influential power.

[krooner]

The U.N. in real life is inept and an utter failure as is. I see no reason to turn it into something in Civ that tries to pretend it is useful. It has become a cesspool of dictators and socialists who use it as a forum to bash prosperous nations and extort them for money. I would love to see that U.S. shut down the building and tell them to find some other country to host it in since all the members want to do is attack us most of the time. In my best Clint Eastwood voice, "Get off my land!!"

[Atticus Lowa]

The U.N. in real life is inept and an utter failure as is. I see no reason to turn it into something in Civ that tries to pretend it is useful. It has become a cesspool of dictators and socialists who use it as a forum to bash prosperous nations and extort them for money. I would love to see that U.S. shut down the building and tell them to find some other country to host it in since all the members want to do is attack us most of the time. In my best Clint Eastwood voice, "Get off my land!!"

Madness? THIS IS CIVLIZATION! *kicks Krooner into pool of sillyness"

But with all seriousness without the UN the US would get away with invading iraq, as it stands the world pretty much secretly hates the US, it does do something guys. the UN is weak because it was MEANT to be, it was never intended to be a world government, it was meant to replace the league of nations, so its fitting the UN would be weak. does it mean it does nothing? no

PS: dictators don't do any better at screwing with the UN than do american politicans.
oh and people wanting to attack the US? you sure we didn't want to invade them first?

[ta game masta]

but who would the peacekeepers attack?

[Akar]

but who would the peacekeepers attack?

A voted omn warring nation? One of the instigators in the war prehaps.

[Atticus Lowa]

The peacekeepers would probably protect a weaker civ, by not marching into an enemies territory but preventing the army through and therefore intimadate the enemy into giving up.

[EnigmaCode]

Where would all these extra peace keeping forces come from? In real life the UN asks for "donations" of troops to be deployed in a certain area and these troops then operate under the UN banner.

So would all civs give up some troops to the UN? It seems unrealistic that all the civs would offer a large amount of their troops only to have no control over their use and to have them potentially used against them.

Perhaps if you didn't offer some troops you would face a UN sanction? That isn't realistic to real life though. Countries don't have to give up troops they voluntarily give up troops. Perhaps of you volunteered some military forces you could get a few more UN votes from the countries you helped? I think this topic needs to be discussed.

[SlickSlicer]

As a military peacekeeping force, I think the UN is almost universally regarded as a joke. EnigmaCode pretty much said what I was thinking. What the UN has done for the world is improve the lot of people in impoverished countries. It encourages world literacy, provides humanitarian aid, etc. rather than, in all practicality, fostering global peace. Personally I liked how the UN worked in Civ 4 because it somewhat reinforced this idea (example: voting for universal suffrage or global trade). I forget if Civ 4 had sanctions or not, but that's an interesting new idea they could implement in Civ 5 if not.

[Atticus Lowa]

As a military peacekeeping force, I think the UN is almost universally regarded as a joke. EnigmaCode pretty much said what I was thinking. What the UN has done for the world is improve the lot of people in impoverished countries. It encourages world literacy, provides humanitarian aid, etc. rather than, in all practicality, fostering global peace. Personally I liked how the UN worked in Civ 4 because it somewhat reinforced this idea (example: voting for universal suffrage or global trade). I forget if Civ 4 had sanctions or not, but that's an interesting new idea they could implement in Civ 5 if not.

Civ 4 kinda had sanctions of some kind.... but they were more about taking stuff away.... The UN In civ could do what it could and should do in real life, primilary because civ is essential historical fantasy.

[EnigmaCode]

Civ 4 kinda had sanctions of some kind.... but they were more about taking stuff away.... The UN In civ could do what it could and should do in real life, primilary because civ is essential historical fantasy.

Which, unfortunately, will be impossible to do. The UN has, and will never, fulfill the one singular purpose for which it was originally created for - to end all wars.

The only way to end all wars is to disband all militaries and subject them to UN control. But what fun would the game be if that happened? Im pretty sure very few players want to build an army large enough to conquer the world, only to see his entire army taken away during 1945 and put under some UN banner. This would then leave the player with just civics/diplomacy and unable to expand any more in the game afterwards.


UN in the game should play a role similar to real life - reacting to crises. The UN is a failure at preventing; however, it is surprisingly good at reacting. For the UN in the game to reach its full potential, natural disasters would have to be added. That way yould "donate" a few troops to the UN, have them operate in the country hit with the disaster, and then return back to you with a possibility of more UN votes from the country you helped. I think thats a pretty good idea at the moment. Perhaps this could be discussed?