United Nations

I was wondering, if it would be a good idea to build a United Nations to like try to balance the world or something. Like in the political world, all the countries would be able to take part of the world affairs and what not. I think it would be an interesting feature and put some fun in the political area!

I can imagine something like that working - every country's president being able to vote on world issues. And on who gets to be Secretary General of course (which would no doubt be the hardest medal to get in the game)

But it would depend on what powers it was given. Like would they be able to trigger sanctions? Or impeach presidents (could be a good check on PTOs)? Or even start wars?

Yeah that would definitely widen the political bit of the game - and also add another bit of strategy.

In real world it's a failed organisation. Failed at least 2 times. In fact their name has officially changed into UN = United Nothing, being manipulated like a bi.....

Anyway, I can see it working in the game. But there are some issues. Who would be a "permanent member" and would the rest have the power to throw someone out (if went rouge). Would their resolution have real power or be a dead letter like in the real world. Would disobeying those resolutions have any real consequances. If yes, what? trade embargo? War?? And could they be implemented on the "permanent members"? And if yes what if someone doesn't want to sanction the country that didn't want to sanction a different country even though the first accepted the sanctions on the country that the seccond didn't want to (YEA I KNOW )?
And what about the existing blocks? How can we choose a NEUTRAL secretary general if all we have is 3 blocks warring between eachother?
Now that I think about it, it would be just like the RL UN. No power, and if at all, it's because someone pulled the strings to harm another country.
If we played agains bots (AI) maybe it would work, but here... I'm pesimistic

Totally agree with you there - to stop it being copying RL failure any decisions would have to actually be implemented in game. They wouldn't be 'resolutions' but actual laws that change the flow of the game. That would make it a proper strategic entity rather than a pointless waste of pixels.

I would say all in game nations would be members. Each country president is allowed to propose 1 law each month and the secretary gets unlimited.

Laws pass with 66.66% of votes (thereby hopefully avoiding any alliance just voting through their own laws). And the laws maybe could be...?

* Regime Change - impeaches a president (and that would block the country from the UN for a month too).
* Sanctions - blocks all trade out of the country (imports could still go in). Would last 30 days.
* Peace - Can impose a peace treaty on two nations.
* Impeach secretary.

A neutral secretary? Yeah that would a be tough call once we all get split up into alliance blocks. Perhaps only someone with 66.66% of the vote can be the winner so that would mean they have to get support from more than one alliance for example... (and also prevent a potential PTO of the UN).

I will make a slight change to this... I would allow to creat alliances Ingame, this means that in the case of that other game, One will have like an HQ ingame as well as TERRA or EDEN... this will cost like 100 Golds or something like that... the cost will be payed by all the countries...

Instead of Making only 1 you can build and disolve... disolveing an Alliance will give you back only half of the golds...

something like that... go figure out.

Songbird wrote:Totally agree with you there - to stop it being copying RL failure any decisions would have to actually be implemented in game. They wouldn't be 'resolutions' but actual laws that change the flow of the game. That would make it a proper strategic entity rather than a pointless waste of pixels.

I would say all in game nations would be members. Each country president is allowed to propose 1 law each month and the secretary gets unlimited.

Laws pass with 66.66% of votes (thereby hopefully avoiding any alliance just voting through their own laws). And the laws maybe could be...?

* Regime Change - impeaches a president (and that would block the country from the UN for a month too).
* Sanctions - blocks all trade out of the country (imports could still go in). Would last 30 days.
* Peace - Can impose a peace treaty on two nations.
* Impeach secretary.

A neutral secretary? Yeah that would a be tough call once we all get split up into alliance blocks. Perhaps only someone with 66.66% of the vote can be the winner so that would mean they have to get support from more than one alliance for example... (and also prevent a potential PTO of the UN).

Disagree, one alliance has 6 members other has 3. Each member is one vote in the UN meaning the one alliance can get 66% of the votes on it's own. In order to make it work, we would have to increase the procentage needed for the law or candidate to pass. I'm guessing 80% of the votes. And no way will others agree to sanction a friendly country (which helps them in their wars) and every law would fail to pass. Seeing as wars will rage all over, every alliance will try to get an upper hand and PTO the UN so it would work for thier alliance. And we still have the issue of seeing the laws passed 'forced' and sanctioned if not respected. We would have wars all over UN, not just the world outside it. If we had ALL nations and a helluva lot neutral nations, which do NOT have ties to one alliance or the other, this idea could work, but since we have entire world devided into blocks, it would turn out to be alliance in UN power agains alliance without UN power. ANd all laws wpassed would be directed against that alliance.

@Xochitonal:
That's what I had in mind for "Blocks". Alliance created (or block) would have it's HQ set up that would act as a mediator between the block and the outside world. And new members only need to "propose alliance" to the HQ of the block/alliance, and NOT to EVERY member, one at the time. And this kind of MPP would of course need to be more expencive then the current ones (when they get created, that is ) and the price should be based on the number of allies within the block...

Oh I thought Xochitonal meant that each alliance would just be a party in the UN (like every congressman is a member of a party in congress). And every president/country would be free to apply to whichever party/alliance they liked - or none at all.

@Illusive Serb
You are quite right - for anything like this to be balanced we need a lot more than 17 countries. That other game could get away with it as they have 69 countries, two kind of equal blocks and lots of neutrals. Here... well it would be a lot harder at the moment.

But I like the idea that the smaller countries get an equal say as the big countries so that they can make the difference - unlike say on the battlefield.

Once the voting % gets over a figure that is realistic and achievable then the whole thing becomes pointless and fails. And if people start battling for votes then maybe it would increase the chances of PTOs etc. But anyway, I don't have the answers!

Well the answer is quite simple. We both see it.
This game can't stay the same forever. That's a fact. At some point people will get bored. But before that happenes we should allways have some changes in reserve to keep things interesting. BUT (And a very important but) we shouldn't make these changes every friggin week like some ancient philosophers do, but only after the need for something fresh is obvious. I suggest first changes be (after all moules are active that is ) be the addition of new countries. But that will debvelope itself after players from those countries come to vPopulus. After that our UN problem is solved. We will have a bounch of countries and most of them will be small and alliance neutral, leaving doors open for our UN idea, IF we can insure they are neutral in the termes of PTO. (We all know what happenes to small, new, countries)

But before this is done, I hope we will see some of the mentioned changes in political module. Specificly political regimes, constitution, party orientation and type ect ect..

This game has a LOT of potential, and I hope admins will pay at least a little heed to players wishes and ideas...

No offense but I kind of find the entire idea kind of pointless, it would end up being used as a form of war and power struggle (think; PTO from the 'other game') and it's only power would be sanctions with the threat of even tougher sanctions.
It seems like it would be too complicated for it's own good to me.

Though if you can come up with a reason why the above wouldn't be true I'll gladly change my stance.

No offense taken Neutroticfish! but I do think that once the basics are in place (military, political, economic and media modules) and a good number of countries are in and established we will have to start looking at other things we can do.

A game just solely along on the same lines as V1 would be great but there is always room for improvement. Do we go down the other game's route and just widen and simplify everything to the point where there is no strategy left whatsoever or should we try and make things a little deeper and make sure it is a proper strategy game. Where things have consequences...

Maybe that means making things a little more complicated... or maybe we are barking up the completely wrong tree here but hey, it's an idea!

Neuroticfish wrote:No offense but I kind of find the entire idea kind of pointless, it would end up being used as a form of war and power struggle (think; PTO from the 'other game') and it's only power would be sanctions with the threat of even tougher sanctions.
It seems like it would be too complicated for it's own good to me.

Though if you can come up with a reason why the above wouldn't be true I'll gladly change my stance.

We noticed that problem as you might have seen, that's why I said it's useless untill we get more countries and a lot of them to be neutral. But that won't happen in a long time, so this is just fun imagination exercise...

true enough.
That's what this forum is for, coming up with new ideas.

Would be nice to have such and "organization" in any case.

But I would refrain from allowing vUN to decide on issues like impeachment. I can see a lot of abuse there.

Perhaps vUN could be used to monitor the progress of international contracts. For example, Croatia and Serbia sign a non-aggression pact, one side breaks the agreement, and the UN sends troops to punish the aggressor

These "troops"... would they be players from UN members or admin's bot army, this I do not know