• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
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.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
of course there will still be instances of border gore.
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.)
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.)
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.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.

That's the theory. I'm afraid that in reality AI won't know how to handle control properly (what land to take in peace deals).
 
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.

"low control areas" should be easier to lose, especially to a tag that is closer and would have better control of it.

edit: also, i bet not many would like such mechanic (and im not sure how it would work tbh), would it would be cool to somehow "lose" or "gain" territory naturally, without war, simply by having low control and neighbouring have overwhelmingly high control nearby. basically automatic "flip" of locations if certain threshold is met. maybe there could be a warning coming up, and the player (or ai) could combat it by placing armies there (short term) and build up whatever neeeded for increased control (longterm).

this type of mechanic would also create more natural borders, because you wouldnt hold territory if it is net loss, and more borders would be along geographical barriers, as well as cultural. and yes, some remote (barren areas might not have any tag controlling it, since it has no benefit to anyone (as i imagine it was irl)

edit2: i remember there were some similar mechanic in an old old civ-game, maybe civ3 or civ4... where if you dominate culturally your borders increase and slowly encroach on neighboring territory, and even engulf their cities.. loved that mechanic)

edit3: this mechanic could also trigger borders incidents, or give casus belli, or demand territory etc etc...
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Won't lie to you chief, it can get pretty Gorey with the AI :p

We're still working a lot on AI tweaking, which is something that will in theory have a big effect on this, so I can't say for sure how border gore filled it's going to be in the future.

Rebel systems help with this too.
 
  • 11Like
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
1753269240894.jpeg

If you look at something like the Timurid chunks in Mongolia and Tibet after a defeat, they’re often completely cut off from the Timurid heartland. While bordergore can technically happen to any country in history, the game currently may not handle the aftermath of such disconnection in a believable or interesting way.

In real history, if a country like the Timurids lost control of its Mongolian outpost, those provinces wouldn't still fly the Timurid flag forever. One of a few things would likely happen:
A local commander or governor would declare independence or proclaim themselves a successor state.
  • A local culture or ethnic group would rebel and form their own state.
  • A neighboring power would step in and take over the territory.
So here's what I propose for EU5:

Isolated Territory Mechanics
Trigger Condition:
  • After a peace treaty, if a province or group of provinces is no longer connected to the capital or core territory by land or secure sea route, it becomes an Isolated Territory.
Consequences of Isolation
Over time, these provinces:
  • Begin to disintegrate automatically.
  • Gain +30 to +60 separatism over 10–20 years.
  • Sharp decrease in maximum control.
  • Therefore reduced taxes and manpower.
Player Response Options
To retain control, the player can:
Appoint a Royal Relative or Noble to 'Govern a Region'
  • This slows down disintegration
  • Converts the province group into a semi-autonomous principality under your dynasty.
  • Delays collapse significantly, but they may eventually form a vassal, personal union, or even rival.
  • Increase corruption
  • Boosts your legitimacy
In this case, a cabinet member needs to perform cabinet action 'Govern a Region' until the Timurids reconquer. Until then that cabinet member won't be available for any other action.

Risks of Inaction
If nothing is done:
  • Neighboring powers may gain a special CB ("Claim Isolated Territory") after 5 years.
  • The provinces may simply revolt and form new nations organically.
Reconnection
If you reconnect isolated provinces (via conquest or diplomacy):
  • You can begin re-integrating the provinces.
  • Recall the cabinet member.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
My understanding is that low control exclaves gain rebels and will eventually make a secessionist movement, which you'll have trouble putting down because your troops won't necessarily be able to access the exclave easily.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: