Give it to Persia!...

[Slaists]

Imagine, you're playing with Austria. After a long war with Prussia, you've finally taken Brandenburg. Guess, what happens the very next turn? Of course, your long time trading partner, one province minor, Hanover, declares war. Ok, beating Hanover is no problem. 2 turns later - no more Hanover. But what next? You and I know, that give it a turn or two, and Denmark will declare war or Westphalia (just because you share a border with them; for some reason, Denmark does not see the small strip of border with Brandenburg as a "real border").

One solution would be to give it to a protectorate, but then, Denmark or Westphalia would declare war on the protectorate, effectively dragging you into the war that you were trying to avoid. Another solution: give it to an ally (Britain or UP). But then again, you're likely to have the very ally turn an enemy because of the shared border. So, here is the solution that the current sorry state of diplomacy balance forces upon a player who does not want to conquer the world (for game-playing reasons): give the buffer zone to some obscure, faraway power who is NOT an ally of yours (so you wouldn't be dragged into wars if someone attacked it). In my game, such a faction was Persia.

Persia has had Hanover for 15 years now. Denmark and Westphalia have been extremely happy with their Asian neighbor while Austria has secured peace on their Western border. Silly, I know, but this seems to be the only way (spare conquering the whole lot) to secure a calm front on the Central European map in 1.3.1.

[Didz]

Yeah! Thats my standard reaction now when I get thoroughly fed-up with the crapped AI and diplomacy. Rather than just dumping the campaign again, I start trashing the AI's provinces and giving them to the most ahistoric and ridiculous countries I can come up with. So, Cherookee in Europe, Ottomans in the America's, Persian's in Ireland. Basically, I treat the game withn the contempt it deserves.

[Slaists]

It seems, that some factions have an easier time maintaining peace (and getting ceasefire) than others. Playing as Britain (on VH), I do not remember such backstabbing and "sneak DOWs" on my allies/protectorates (to give me global relationship strikes for "breaking treaties" when I join allies defending against someone I just made peace with) as I experienced playing with Austria (on H). Maybe CA has taken care to script the diplomacy more for Britain than for others. Who knows.

[Fisherking]

Yes, I do it too. It is best given to a non-allied trading partner as it also increases the trade income you receive because they now have another province but it is possible that they too will go to war with you, of course.

[Slaists]

Yes, I do it too. It is best given to a non-allied trading partner as it also increases the trade income you receive because they now have another province but it is possible that they too will go to war with you, of course.

I do it with the same reasoning. Persia was my non-allied trading partner. However, despite me having a land-border with Persia after the transfer of Hannover, our trade did not reset from zero to something. There was an Ottoman fleet sitting in the only Persian trade harbor. I guess, trade cannot reset from sea-based to land-based.

[Servius]

As Fisherking said, giving a neighboring province to Persia seems likely to just lead to Persia declaring war on you.

This is another reason why I like GB.
A) As an island, the home provinces do not share a land border with anyone.
B) As a naval power, it's well positioned to earn money through trade, which lessens the need for large land holdings to generate income
C) I can capture many islands (particularly in the Carribean) that generate trade goods and don't share any land borders

I'm running a GB campaign right now where I gave the finger to America and Europe and headed directly for India. I waited for the M&Ms to take out Goa and Ceylon, then I took out both M&Ms. Wouldn't you know it, but once I had mastered India, my bestest trade buddy Persia declared war on me because we now shared a land border. So I took over all of their lands too. The advantage here is that I could have left the territory of Persia alone, which would have meant that I only had a single land border with a single province, and thus a single foreign nation that I was already at war with. But Persia is pretty rich so I took it anyway. Now I have two full stacks of veteran East India troops in Persia staring angrily across the borders towards the Ottomans and the Russians, just daring them to give me an excuse. With India bottled up, I returned to America and zerged all of North America in a handful of years. Once I finish with South America I'll be back to having only a single territory that shares a border.

OOO! I just thought of an alternative. If you can, give border territories to protectorates who are ALL READY AT WAR with their new neighbors. Protectorates at least tend to remain loyal allies and won't attack you very often, and if they're already at war with their new neighbors, you won't be dragged into any new conflicts.