Now, for negotiated surrenders, a table of choices would have to be built. ALL powers currently at war would have a section, even if they aren't interested in surrendering or being surrendered to.
In addition to having all of the powers listed, every possible choice they could make needs to be outlined. This would be similar to the way it is done now, but with all of the options laid out at once and for all players.
So, for a two-player war, with no players at war anywhere else, the table would have a section for each power, and the sections would be identical to what they are now. For example, GB and France are the only two players at war. Each would have a surrender this turn option, a conditional vs. unconditional acceptable option, and a list of all possible conditions which could be chosen. It would be like looking at both GB's and France's diplo phase screen side-by-side (but, missing anything that doesn't deal with peace).
Let's say France invaded GB, so GB is surrendering. Further, assume the GB/France harder surrender option is not in force (it helps the description of this). GB would initiate surrender negotiations by clicking a button that would bring up this "Negotiations for Surrender" window. Let's say this GB is a master of manipulations, and hopes those skills can get her an informal peace. So, she only offers an informal. (Informal could have a free-form text box that would allow non-binding "conditions".)
France laughs to himself and returns the request with the informal box unchecked, but suggests and unconditional with some lighter terms chosen.
Let's say GB wants to hold out for a light conditional, so she deselects unconditional and selects conditional. She also still wants light, so she says 24 months and money are the two options she will grant. The request is then sent back to France.
France says to himself, "Hey, I'm besieging London, with pretty good odds of taking it before I lose all of my troops to foraging or combat losses. I want more. But, asking for an unconditional is too much." So, France leaves conditional selected, unchecks 24 months, and checks "remove corps" instead. Then, sends it back to GB.
This would continue until one or the other either accepts the terms, or checks a "reject all negotiation attempts" box, ending that sub-phase.
If negotiations are successful, then all powers who are at war get peace according to the selected choices.
If negotiations are unsuccessful, then the game gets back to normal.
IMPORTANT NOTE: None of the above (this post) has to happen in the diplo phase. It can be done completely asynchronously from the game, with the exception of the final step (accept or reject).
Note also that ALL warring powers must be present on the sheet, not just those who are interested. The reason is because one power may want to allow a light peace, provided other powers are granted an informal peace (for example). In order for the negotiations to be successful, all interested parties would have to agree.
This brings up a point: It's possible one power doesn't want to negotiate, but the others do. That would mean that the uncooperating player would check a box to "opt out" of negotiations. Then, that players section of choices would be greyed out, and they would no longer be involved in the negotiations. All this means is that the other players can only negotiate amongst themselves. I would call this "being inactive in negotiations".
Finally, the breaking alliances step presents a problem when more than one power is involved. But, if the previous post is also accepted, the issue evaporates (the player makes his/her choices during diplomacy, where they are binding, rather than during negotiations, which are only binding when accepted by all active parties.)
Complicated? Yes. But, much closer to how most humans always played EiA. I think the complication and extra time spent on surrender would add a great deal of depth to the game.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?