What about the UN ...

Have a feature request for SRU? Post here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Aragos
General
Posts: 1431
Joined: Jan 13 2005
Location: Washington, DC

Re: What about the UN ...

Post by Aragos »

The UN really came about during WWII (1 Jan 1942). However, it was basically "the Allies" then and not really a global organization as it became after 1945.

Personally, I'd leave it out of a WWII game. It works fine for SRCW, and was only really an 'add on' to SR2020.

If the Goats want the game to continue past WWII, then they'd need to include it. However, I think the plan is to just do events, etc. for WWII and allow the game to run past the war in sandbox mode (no events, etc).
User avatar
Legend
General
Posts: 2531
Joined: Sep 08 2002
Human: Yes
Location: Ancaster, Ontario - BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Re: What about the UN ...

Post by Legend »

WhiteJP wrote:As the UN was established in 1945, will players be able to build outside of the limits?

If this is being discussed elsewhere, my search-** failed.

James
I'm not sure - what do you mean by "build outside of the limits"?
Niko465
Colonel
Posts: 252
Joined: Dec 18 2011
Human: Yes

Re: What about the UN ...

Post by Niko465 »

Legend wrote:
WhiteJP wrote:As the UN was established in 1945, will players be able to build outside of the limits?

If this is being discussed elsewhere, my search-** failed.

James
I'm not sure - what do you mean by "build outside of the limits"?
Internationnal waters are property of UN.
Nicolau Abraão Rojas
Brazillian United Front
South East State
mrgenie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 923
Joined: Jul 08 2008

Re: What about the UN ...

Post by mrgenie »

Actually, if we want this to be correct.
The United Nations was founded in 1945, not during the war!

The term has been used during the war after 1942, but not as pointing to an organization! It's just a term
used to describe the 26 allied nations to continue their war efforts. As you can see, a charter continuing
war efforts against the axis, is actually the opposite of what the later UN was supposed to do:"prevent war"
There might be some misunderstanding about the same term used for 2 different agreements. I can see that.
But they have nothing in common really, except some nations which signed the first chapter of continuing
war efforts and joined the UN as organization when it was founded in '45 to prevent war.

However, the UN might have been founded in '45, it wasn't just out of thin air that it was founded.
It replaced the League of Nations founded in '20 based on Immanual Kant, a German who saw that the dictatorship
of the UK and France over this planet would inevitably lead to global wars sooner or later and thus an international
organization should take measures to prevent such. It would simply be a matter of time for some nations
to step up against the dictatorships and aggressive politics of the British and French to control and dominate the world.

It's common people's psychology, if you push people against the wall, leaving them no other option then armed
resistance, they will step up and form armed resistance. WWII would never have happened if the British and French
didn't try to enslave the world. If they hadn't attacked and humiliated the Germans multiple times, if they hadn't
try to humiliate the Italians, if they hadn't try to humiliate the Americans, etc.. independence war, world wars, etc..
they never would have happened. After WWII the British, French, Dutch wanted to do the same as after WWI,
enslave all the world and make sure WWIII will happen. That was the sole and only intention of the French and the British,
to make sure they can dictate and control the world once again.
The Netherlands even dreamed of reinstating their global power by taking control and assimilating half of western
Germany to make sure they could control their colonies and crack down any uprising.

The USA was the sole and only power that said:"NO!" We won't need a Versailles 2 because it will lead to WWIII.
So the Dutch, Greek, British, French, etc who already dreamed of new dictatorships and controlling the planet
had to bow for the might of the US Army and accept freedom and democracy for all mankind. Something especially
the dutch moral apostles didn't like as the royals in the Netherlands had big plans about enlarging their empire and
making slaves out of the Germans and colonial people.

Some part of history you won't learn at school but can only read in old espionage documents, of which I've read
more then 1800 meanwhile. If you read the old reports about the plans of the Dutch, British and French, you gotta
get sick as if they hadn't learned anything from two world wars.

Anyway, both WW were predicted many times and already 200 years before they happened by philosophers,
who pointed out the problems caused by the British, Dutch, French and other dictatorial colonial aggressors
and wrote down the principles and need for a league of nations and later the UN.
Unfortunately, it's implementation even today is by far not optimal allowing countries like the USA to start illegal wars
against people in Afghanistan, Iraq and other illegal actions. It allows large countries like Russia to conduct
illegal wars against southern neighbors, Afghanistan, etc..
It can't prevent illegal wars of Argentina against the Falklands.
It can't prevent Putin from supporting Assad to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians.
It can't prevent Russian weapons delivered to Syria to kill woman and children.
Basically, the UN is history by it's own:"doing nothing"
just as the league of nations..
Intentions might be alright, but practical it's power is limited by the unwillingness of the large nations
to accept their own rules and simply bend them as they see fit.

So in my opinion, the UN is a worthless element of the game, since in reality, it doesn't do anything good
except social help like Childcare and raising funds for immunization programs in Africa. Where Bill Gates
is even more successful then the mighty UN!
If I'm correct, the only successful UN Action was the defense of South Korea against the aggressive
forces of China, Soviet Union and North Korea. Which almost even lead to a nuclear war, if it weren't for the
US president to prevent his General McArthur from deploying nukes against the communists, so even there
it wasn't the UN to prevent anything, it was the US president to make sure things wouldn't escalate.
[UI-MOD] All-In-One viewtopic.php?f=91&t=31906
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: What about the UN ...

Post by Zuikaku »

I do not think that politics belong here....

But UN in the game should be just like the UN in real world - useless. So why even bothering with implementing UN in the game?!
Please teach AI everything!
suaske666
Major
Posts: 157
Joined: Apr 02 2013
Human: Yes

Re: What about the UN ...

Post by suaske666 »

Zuikaku wrote:I do not think that politics belong here....

But UN in the game should be just like the UN in real world - useless. So why even bothering with implementing UN in the game?!
Actually the UN may seem useless to a civilian, but to a politician the UN is where you go to to justify a war. The more influence you have there the smaller the repercussions are for starting a war.
Too bad SRCW hasn't implemented this into the game.
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: What about the UN ...

Post by Zuikaku »

suaske666 wrote: Actually the UN may seem useless to a civilian, but to a politician the UN is where you go to to justify a war. The more influence you have there the smaller the repercussions are for starting a war.
Too bad SRCW hasn't implemented this into the game.
The UN is useless to small countries since ,in practice, they can not protect their interests there.
To superpowers UN is only place where they justify (get legality for) their actions. But they can do anything they want even without the UN without any repercussions.
So, not modelling UN in game IMHO does not hurt the game in any way....
It's more worth to properly model diplomacy, alliances and international politics...
Please teach AI everything!
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: What about the UN ...

Post by Balthagor »

If you want to discuss the UN, there is a thread in off topic that already has lots of discussion.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
bvb
Colonel
Posts: 274
Joined: Aug 28 2008

Re: What about the UN ...

Post by bvb »

Building in international waters should be a non-issue in this time frame anyway. Even breaking into the 1950's the deepest submerged oil well was only in 15-20 feet of water.
suaske666
Major
Posts: 157
Joined: Apr 02 2013
Human: Yes

Re: What about the UN ...

Post by suaske666 »

Zuikaku wrote:
suaske666 wrote: Actually the UN may seem useless to a civilian, but to a politician the UN is where you go to to justify a war. The more influence you have there the smaller the repercussions are for starting a war.
Too bad SRCW hasn't implemented this into the game.
The UN is useless to small countries since ,in practice, they can not protect their interests there.
To superpowers UN is only place where they justify (get legality for) their actions. But they can do anything they want even without the UN without any repercussions.
So, not modelling UN in game IMHO does not hurt the game in any way....
It's more worth to properly model diplomacy, alliances and international politics...
I agree that the current state of diplomacy (and UN) in the game is far below it's potential, however I'm sure that's the last thing on the devs' list of things to improve.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRU”