I don't think it's about what happened. You can feel, of course, that a certain scene in the game seems very similar to what happened in history. But I still want to remind you that the game is not history, let alone the present. In the real world, if sanctions are adopted but not strictly implemented, or if there is no energy to implement them. Sanctions will be meaningless. But in the game, this often only turns into two results. In the diplomatic system, the weight of each country is completely the same. According to the game mechanism, of course, they will be more targeted at the most powerful country, and they will directly gain benefits. In the decision-making of non war, the most powerful country can not even retaliate. In the other model, the stronger the country is, the better it can make decisions in the diplomatic system. It must be that hegemonic countries use this system to suppress all other countries.

It isn't just war though. If say France and the USA had a disagreement neither would actually threaten war since they both have nukes. However they could threaten each other with economic sanctions, a very real threat that wouldn't result in mutual destruction. That, not military threat, is what keeps Jamaica in line. We wouldn't invade them over debt, but we could stop trading. The rules WB/IMF have imposed on them destroyed a lot of local businesses that couldn't compete with USA business. Now they are dependant on our imports. A sudden loss of the USA as a trade partner would be devastating to them.

Economic sanctions aren't the only thing holding the UN together though. The UN also provides benefits to member countries, guaranteeing rights that they might not be able to enforce by themselves. If a country were to not comply with the UN they could stand to lose those, without an explicit threat of violence.

Eulogos wrote:

It isn't just war though. If say France and the USA had a disagreement neither would actually threaten war since they both have nukes. However they could threaten each other with economic sanctions, a very real threat that wouldn't result in mutual destruction. That, not military threat, is what keeps Jamaica in line. We wouldn't invade them over debt, but we could stop trading. The rules WB/IMF have imposed on them destroyed a lot of local businesses that couldn't compete with USA business. Now they are dependant on our imports. A sudden loss of the USA as a trade partner would be devastating to them.

Economic sanctions aren't the only thing holding the UN together though. The UN also provides benefits to member countries, guaranteeing rights that they might not be able to enforce by themselves. If a country were to not comply with the UN they could stand to lose those, without an explicit threat of violence.

Your example just shows that building more bilateral diplomatic mechanisms is very important for the game. Just like China and the United States, they are now involved in trade disputes, but in fact it is impossible to stop trade. The bilateral relations can not be divided into alliance, friendship, dissatisfaction and war. In bilateral diplomacy, economic sanctions, scientific and technological blockades, and strengthening cultural influence should be added as options.

This thread is about UN  in game not UN in world so please keep point out where this mechanic lag in game not political situation caused by it real world.

In your answer, there is a question that has always been reflected. The United Nations in reality has something to do with the reality of our lives and the history of the past. The things you exemplified at the beginning are the real things that the United Nations does. It's logical to do these things because we went through World War I and World War II, and the cold war. The events in the game may not experience these things. Suddenly, it may seem very abrupt to run out in an organized way to do such things. You can take what you said as some options and contents of modern multilateral diplomacy, but before that, you didn't test a corresponding framework, a United Nations in the human game was very abrupt before there was mutual logic between diplomacy and fame and the development of civilization.

In short, when the UN in the game in your mind has the function of the UN in reality, but it does not have the structure of the UN in reality, it will appear very abrupt and weird in any case.

If you really want to build a reasonable multilateral diplomatic system. I suggest you understand the construction and collapse of Westphalia System, Vienna system, Versailles system, Washington system, and Yalta system.

Abhi2410 wrote:
This game victory condition is how you are famous and effective civ than others and UN justifies it.

 Your points are unjustified and your focus are on civ6 and real world. 

 Stellaris and civ 5 introduced this system and they got popular because that give diplomatic strategy which is loved by people.

UN is a best stage of your influence and your domination on world.

This involves ideological idealism and realism. I understand your idealistic tone, but it's a question for the production team whether to choose idealism

zhugejingqi wrote:

Abhi2410 wrote:
This game victory condition is how you are famous and effective civ than others and UN justifies it.

 Your points are unjustified and your focus are on civ6 and real world. 

 Stellaris and civ 5 introduced this system and they got popular because that give diplomatic strategy which is loved by people.

UN is a best stage of your influence and your domination on world.

This involves ideological idealism and realism. I understand your idealistic tone, but it's a question for the production team whether to choose idealism

We should leave this decision for them.