[@RhineQueen]

No, it's more the owning two-nations under one player part I contest. I can understand creating NPC nations which are in-directed in "off-times" between any direct interaction or reaction to other player actions. But a single player owning more than one "nation" suggests boredom on the behalf of the desiring player and that any one of their nations is now easily disposable in favor of the other.

Really, you should be trying to foster a long-term relationship with what you have over what you could have. And given what you do run there's no lack of internalized content. More-so than a state of mutants with self-imposed isolationism. And arguably the territory you span consists of several unique nations and identities already.

I could raise a number of real-world points that'd act as inspiration on how something such as that would be meeting with a lot of internalized bickering and a lack of cohesion on its own part. Historically based on Anglo-Franco rivalry and Franco-German rivalry in the later part of modern history. Or even of UK criticism and eagerness to actually abandon the predominately German-Belgian led EU (The EU is often held in high-esteem among mainland Europeans and less so the British). So you have plenty of material to write on your own over a wide-range that you should not be bored in Northern Europe and shouldn't need to be someone else at the same time.