WW3 after Players surrender

[unmerged(64512)]

I was wondering about the fact that most of games simply ends when one player/6 surrender because of any big mistake(big losses) and then can't stand a chance to win.
I'm not blaming anyone shit happens to everyone in it's hoi playing life, I just though that if a player want to surrender he should fight until his last forces then he give up and is subbed, or not.After that the player should sign a peace treaty (it can be puppet treaty) with his opponent and guys start the cold war until WW3.
We could make a rule about this or create some surrender event specially done if the player beaten want to stop the game but not fuck it all up.
I'm about sure if I get beaten at anytime I could switch side as allied with my victorious opponent and prepare for a new war.

 

[unmerged(74599)]

We have a current game like that with Anders, Von Bock. MG and me. Pred is in there too occaissionally. Though we havn't gotten to it in a couple of weeks. Its 1945, USSR and Germany are at peace. Japan is in the Allies, and the cold war should get hot soon.

 

[aphrochine]

In WPO, we have a surrender rule. While it cannot force anyone to actually try to defend themselves, it does outline to who and when surrenders may occur. Like you must surrender, and puppet to only a country who is defeating you and occupying your nation (no 3rd party puppets).

After a game with some nutty 3rd party puppeting and gimme surrendering, we felt the need to outline this.

Also, its the longest and most detailed rule on our books, and still has possible loopholes and flaws.

This is a very difficult thing to regulate.