It seems to me that a lot of people complaining about the new surrender system tend to confuse armistice negotiations or indirect negotiations in order to obtain a first negotiation meeting with actual peace negotiations.
Just remember, that peace negotiations for WW2 were closed only with the Treaty of Paris in 1947, some 2 years after the actual end of the war.
All what Romania or other countries negotiated before were armistices or surrenders, or mere access to opponent countries officials . Even Vichy France existence was due to the acceptance by some French of an armistice, Germans refusing a bilateral peace treaty in order to keep France at bay at smaller cost.
The distinction may seem technical but is not. Until a peace treaty is signed all the territorial/population/reparation issues are open, and countries can win the war or be on the winning side militarily but still loose, in their eyes, the peace.
Or there were no peace treaties during WW2 proper. Now, a part of the players may think that will put some hard limits in their goals of achieving a, say, Salvadorian World Conquest (no contempt implied about El Salvador's historical achievements) but, without prejudice about the final Paradox solution, I think Paradox has the right approach of the issue as it is right now. It seems to me that an hypothetical conflict between Nepal and Tibet is out of a WW2 wargame range of issues and should stay there. The game, as it appears right now, seems a lot more complex than HOI 2 and should give a lot of playtime to any armchair strategist.