Infamy, and why it's not Enough

In Victoria 2, the "liberate country" CB cost 11 infamy, releasing all states with that tag's cores. The "free people" CB cost 7.5 infamy and did the same thing to just a single state of your choosing. This obviously confused and mildly annoyed some players. After all, why should I be seen as the bad guy for sending my own POPs to die in a muddy battlefield for someone else's freedom?

Then, you get to Victoria 3 and you realize why. Since liberating countries comes with no infamy penalty, there isn't much reason not to use it to dismantle your rivals using spare manuvers during diplomatic plays. You aren't required to push the war goal, so you can freely drop it from peace deals.

My Proposal: Regional Tension

I propose a "regional tension" mechanic for Victoria 3. Where Victoria 2 punishes nations for dismantling their rivals outside a Great War, I think Victoria 3 has an opportunity to create indirect consequences for meddling with the balance of power. This system draws from CK2's "threat" mechanic, HOI4's "world tension" mechanic, and Victoria 2's "flashpoint tension" mechanic.

Every region should have a "tension" value. It applies to every state in the region equally. Tension gradually ticks down over time, but each maneuver adds tension. High tension increases radicalism, increases the chances of native uprisings, encourages neighboring unrecognized nations to join those native uprisings, increases the strength of nationalist movements and foreign political lobbies (a great tie-in with the upcoming DLC!!!), and increases the likelihood that AI-controlled nations will join wars, defensive pacts, and power blocs against the nations responsible for increasing regional tension.

What is the Goal?

The end goal of this mechanic is to make nationalism a compelling force in politics. Multinational empires like Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire should seek to curb independence movements and prevent unifications (ie Italy and Germany). Colonial empires like the US, Britain, and France should avoid blobbing against unrecognized nations lest they accidentally cause a regional unification, making colonization much more expensive.

Additional Considerations

Tension should ideally spill over to adjacent regions. I'm not sure if it should simply tick up when tension is high or if it should apply a reduced amount of regional tension all at once every time a diplomatic play happens in the adjacent region. Perhaps a combination of the two is ideal.

Paradox can make the system more granular by having tension increase in four stages: when a diplomatic play is started, when a new demand is added to the play, when a war starts, and when a demand is accepted (either peacefully or as part of a peace agreement). This incentivizes neighboring countries to intervene in plays to keep regional tension low.

Some society techs (like nationalism or egalitarianism) should increase the severity of regional tension.

Thoughts?