I’m working on the diplomacy/negotiation system for my game at the moment, and trying to figure out how to handle this aspect of the game. One thing I am still deciding on is how complex to make politics in the game. Do players want to be able to garner friendship with an organization with one hand, while plotting their down fall with their rivals with the other? Or do they want politics to be simple and just trade X good Y’s for A good B’s? Here the outline for the system I have come up with thus far, and three possible variants as to how it might work. Initial Overview The diplomacy/negotiation system must allow for the player to deal with other organizations, to gain access to assets, resources, and services; as well as to allow the player to engage in complex negotiations in a simple and easy to use manner. Desired Features 1-Negotation objects – Favors = the promise to do something for the other party. - Boons = One time benefit provided by another party. - Goods = the exchange of technology, funds, or other things. - Service = the offer of a service. - History = the record of past dealings with company. - Reputation = the parties reputation/influence. Conflict points 1-The negotiation system must allow for complex deals. 2-The negotiation system must be easy to use. Variants: 1-Each negotiation object is given a point value, history is represented by white and black marks each worth one point that indicate good and bad previous relations. White marks add to the party’s side and black marks are added to the other party’s side. A negotiation becomes a sort of trade where both sides attempt to balance the negotiation scale. A negotiation would consist of offer and request, where one party places there offer on their side of the table and what they want from the other part on the other side of the table, based on their knowledge of the other party. The other party then makes a counter attempting to balance the scales, this continues until both sides are satisfied or one party decides to walk away. This would be the simplest to implement but makes negotiations very mechanical and could lead to players exploiting the computer through junk trades. 2-As above but instead of fixed point values for negotiation objects these values would be modified based on supply and demand. The greater one party wants or needs an object the more valuable that object becomes. This is also based on knowledge of the party meaning that the values assigned to objects from your point of view can be different from the value the other part assigns to them; in this way value is relative instead of fixed. This can help achieve a more fluid feel to negotiations and makes knowledge a more powerful tool when dealing with other parties and should help reduce junk trades. 3-Negotation takes the form of a mini game of some sort, where the negotiation objects are pieces that are used to attempt to acquire the desired objects in the negotiation. This would require an additional sub-game to be designed that would increase the time needed to make any form of negotiation as well as breaking the overall immersion factor of the game, although it may added an additional and possibly unnecessary level of strategy and player interaction to this game aspect. A few examples of negotiation: 1-Wanting purchase access to an organizations carbon nanotube restraint technology for the period of one year. 2-Wanting an organization to attack a rivals facility. 3-Offering to sell an organization 4 Minotaur class biomutants a month for one year. Thoughts?7

Although I prefer just about everything to be complicated [grin], I'd recommend a pretty straightforward and simple approach here unless it's going to be a central focus of the game. The time you take on this screen versus doing everything else should help determine how much goes into it.

One problem I've always had with negotiation is the lack of an emotional component from the NPCs, even when I clearly have them over a barrel. Alpha Centauri and Civ 3 have some of the best negotiation systems (even vote trading for upcoming elections in AC), but I think I've only once been able to get the AI to give when they've been at death's door.

The memory system for past betrayals is usally pretty shallow (they remember what you did to them, and communicate it to alter your behavior, but you have no means reply in kind).

One interesting element would be (since we're talking legal) is to negotiate default penalties of $X thousand or million dollars for failing to comply. It would bring an extra element to promises, especially if you could find out about the agreements between rivals.

To add a bit of strategy to Variant 1, you could make negotiation more dangerous: Use the "set items on the table" idea, but doing so isn't a matter of balancing, rather it reveals your hand. If any side takes an item off the table, it lowers the mood in the room (you've offered, now you're rescinding the offer). You could also threaten to take something off the table, but if you do this or actually take something off the table, you risk blowing up negotiations (which could be limited by a given number of moves based on how interested the opposing party is).

If you hide a bit of the details, and give the ability to hire trade advisors (who may or may not be loyal, as with your scientists), I think this element would be both risky and fun.

I'd also make it difficult to open negotiations the bigger the company is, thus making the risk of a walk-out more devastating.

Oh My God!! Blind Poker!! I am bargaining a two billion dolars commercial accord playing Blind Poker!! This is insane!!

I just love it.