by MScrivner
Samo,I wonder how much of this is the playgroup and so forth. My group tends to turn everything into a negotiation - even what pizza place we are ordering from when we all get hungry, so it may indeed be that I am seeing negotiation in game elements where there are none.
That said, I think maybe the confusion you are having, at least relative to Diplomacy is, the negotiation in Diplomacy is built in and required as a particular phase in the game, and during it, the players hammer out together what actions they will take the next turn. The entire focus of a game of Diplomacy is the negotiation, the main strategy of the game is the strategy of negotiation, and everything else in the game is secondary to it. In TI3, the negotiation is not a special phase. Instead, there are several OTHER phases where there can (and SHOULD) be negotiation or effects. But it's not the forefront of the game play so if you are not a natural negotiator, if you are more of a eurogamer who wants to play his little moves in a little vacuum, than it's possible to play a game of TI3 without it.
Just in terms of the mechanics, there are at least TWO places where negotiation seems to be encouraged naturally as part of game play.
First, there is trade element. It seems to me that trade resources at some point become absolutely essential in their ability to act as either additional purchasing power, or additional voting power (influence.) As such, maintaining trade agreements is essential, and they thus become a form of leverage in discussions - both a carrot and a stick. They act as a carrot in so far as both parties will benefit mutually from maintaining them. They act as a stick in so far as the penalty for breaking them means the removal of potentially much needed resources. This second factor is especially important when you consider the power of the Merchant's Guild, when executing the primary effect of the Trade Strategy card. With that ability you can cancel every active trade agreement in play. This sort of scorched earth effect can and SHOULD be used as a blunt instrument in negotiations over other effects. For example, if the table is about to pass a vote to harm the player with the Trade Strategy card, it would be reasonable for that player to threaten a break up of all trade agreements, and to point out the numerical loss of trade value to all players involved. "If you all collude to screw me over, I will screw all of you over. Wouldn't it be better for all of us if this vote just failed?"
Second, as I've already mentioned, there is the Politics strategy card, and it's ability to form a Galactic Council which votes and enacts political effects that essentially alter the game state or even change the game rules. ANY time ANY vote in ANY game must happen, there ought to be negotiation - especially if you are one of the "sideline" players who the vote will not help or harm. "Hey guys, it doesn't matter to me whether this vote passes or not, but it DOES matter to me that I get to chose the tech strategy next turn. Bob, you'll get to pick before me next turn. If you agree to leave the tech strategy so I can take it, I will vote in your favor in this election" and so on. Negotiation is give and take - both parties should always walk away with some benefit (even if that benefit is that no harm will be done, as in the case of threats). There is lots of room in TI3 for this sort of thing to happen.
Lastly, and again this may be a local playgroup metagame thing, the military sub-game has some room for negotiating. I've already called this "saber-rattling" above. The idea is in any given game, the THREAT of combat is a powerful negotiation tool. It's as simple as building a few extra units on the board, just so that, regardless of the actual combat strength of your fleet there is the appearance, psychologically, that you have a bigger military force than a neighboring opponent, and then using that psychological advantage to brute force other in-game effects to your benefit. "Hey Bob. I see you are thinking about breaking trade agreements so you can reform them. I wouldn't do that if I were you. This fleet of mine here might get confused about what sector they are supposed to sit in and might feel the need to WANDER in, say, your direction."
Those are just a few examples, but I hope that answers your question!