That is precisely what I am worried about.of course there will still be instances of border gore.
Are you trying to make sure bordergore is literally impossible? I don't really understand what you're getting at, bordergore happened in real life, not allowing it would be even more of a problem than making it have no cost whatsoever.That is precisely what I am worried about.
Bordergore of a defeated country in war needs to be addressed.
Does a second minor polity emerge based on ruling culture, religion, dynasty, etc?
I do not want to see a small 'golden horde' near crimea and then an even smaller 'golden horde' in the steppes.
(Habsburg Austria having holdings sprinkled across central europe is fine ig.)
I know that bordergores happened, where wars tore countries into multiple chunks.Are you trying to make sure bordergore is literally impossible? I don't really understand what you're getting at, bordergore happened in real life, not allowing it would be even more of a problem than making it have no cost whatsoever.
And you'll have to make sure rebels don't show up and break away, but even then you still fairly frequently had cases of states with non-contiguous borders, even outside the HRE. I don't really see what the problem here is, bordergore is a bad state for your nation to be in, you don't want your nation split up like that, it will cause you problems and you will be incentivized to fix the situation. I don't know that anything further really needs to be done.I know that bordergores happened, where wars tore countries into multiple chunks.
But it is natural for the disconnected chunk to continue as a breakaway state, as it was almost always the case in history.
Control spreads from your capital along owned locations and coastlines. Not having a connection to your capital in a location means limited control. This incentivizes nations to have well defined borders with minimal distance to their capital, though of course there will still be instances of border gore.