So, what are you guys thoughts about Marches? I confess that after Art of War I didn't played very much.
About Marches
- Thread starter Qoff
- Start date
-
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.
Not really worth the fuss. I usually conquer stuff in every direction around me, to ever have any use for marches.
Pretty bad from a long term perspective, although, with the right March (as in no ideas that increase coring costs), they will make lots of claims for free CBs to feed them, however, don't let them get too big.
They get maybe 1 or 2 more troops, and better defense, but I don't let my vassals get sieged, so that's not much better and you can only go to 100 relations and get less money from them.
Pretty bad all in all because of the -1 stab and -200 relations hit you take after you make them a vassal again and thus can't integrate them any time soon.
It sort of depends on what you're doing and where they are.
In my Malaya game, I had no use for the Nubia/Somali area aside from the trade ports to move trade away from there. So I made Adal a March then gave them a lot of provinces in the wars. If those ottoderps come back to bother me again, they'll find a westernized Hindu state in Arabia ready to wipe them out.
In my Malaya game, I had no use for the Nubia/Somali area aside from the trade ports to move trade away from there. So I made Adal a March then gave them a lot of provinces in the wars. If those ottoderps come back to bother me again, they'll find a westernized Hindu state in Arabia ready to wipe them out.
WAY too often my marches fall behind tech and become completely trivial anyway, then you can't integrate them and it's just a big mess. My first Ethiopeia game was ruined because I marched my southern border and he didn't generate any claims and lagged behind 3 techs so his troops failed to accomplish much.
Marches need to prioritize mil tech more, maybe have some bonuses to it, and they definitely need to have a larger army.
Marches need to prioritize mil tech more, maybe have some bonuses to it, and they definitely need to have a larger army.
Well, I wasn't about to conquer Georgia with their pesky +100% core cost, so I made them my march. It's an option if you want to permanently lock one of your dip relations. (wished no one ever.)
They are pretty much a let down. The bonuses are nice and stack well with nations that have special military focuses; however, their expansion potential isn't that big since I don't see much of a difference in them getting claims. You can just watch the nations around you getting claims, going to war, getting more land...meanwhile your march just sits there...lucky to get 1 claim over many years. I was hoping that they would have been more aggressive with fabricating claims on their own. I haven't seen much of difference in the claims they get. It seems a normal nation gets more claims (as they expand and go to war all the time) vs our vassals that just sit there.
It all depends on your long term strategy also. If you like painting the map all in your color and going solo, they may not be your cup of tea. If you like to be more efficient they might be worth utilizing. If you start off a small vassal (and plan on keeping them) its useful to start them as a march so they can help you grow while you feed them/you. If they get too big, they are pretty much ready to 'graduate' into a mega vassal. Vassals are useful if you grow them to control areas that you dont want to deal with, be it unaccepted culture, a buffer nation or just to have a beautifully strong perma-ally for your wars. I use them when I have the religious cbs since I can feed them cores all for 0 diplo costs. I take what I can handle and give them the rest. Works out nicely in the end for us both.
It all depends on your long term strategy also. If you like painting the map all in your color and going solo, they may not be your cup of tea. If you like to be more efficient they might be worth utilizing. If you start off a small vassal (and plan on keeping them) its useful to start them as a march so they can help you grow while you feed them/you. If they get too big, they are pretty much ready to 'graduate' into a mega vassal. Vassals are useful if you grow them to control areas that you dont want to deal with, be it unaccepted culture, a buffer nation or just to have a beautifully strong perma-ally for your wars. I use them when I have the religious cbs since I can feed them cores all for 0 diplo costs. I take what I can handle and give them the rest. Works out nicely in the end for us both.
I created Adal out of full annexed lands, so they got my tech and boosted idea sets. They also westernized eventually and have bumped up in tech vs those around them.
They're also mass converting everything I give them. So I don't have to go religious and do it myself.
What's bad is client states... No cores, no plans. Rebels will break them fast if you aren't playing rebel bonk for them.
As Morocco I did a bit of re-reconquista, revived Granada and turned them into a March. The Iberians never bothered me again.
Would seem rare that a march could be justified over just having a vassal. It's currently too underwhelming for a perma dip slot.
But as said above. client states are terribad.
perhaps if you could intergrate a march after 50 years they'd be alright and if you could give them objectives in peacetime aka fab claims. and make them take all mil ideas.
But as said above. client states are terribad.
perhaps if you could intergrate a march after 50 years they'd be alright and if you could give them objectives in peacetime aka fab claims. and make them take all mil ideas.
Can you get a vassal, turn them into a march, but continue to feed them cores past the normal BT limit? I'm guessing not, but you could make a huge March out of places like Persia, who you can return a dozen cores to in a war..
They have a max BT before they revert to vassal (with the huge malus). 60 or something like that though.
Finland seems like the obvious march. As Poland I hate having Moldavia as a march, since they're almost as useless as a vassal.
Finland seems like the obvious march. As Poland I hate having Moldavia as a march, since they're almost as useless as a vassal.
That's exacly the problem haha, I love playing as Poland but Moldavia as a march is a huge turn off.
They're good for, er, roleplaying; I guess...
What? That's a fun thing to do.
For powergaming, though. Not much use.
What? That's a fun thing to do.
For powergaming, though. Not much use.
Just an FYI in case other players didn't know (since you probably do), you will get the message that a March has grown too big to keep receiving the special benefits; however, they will still 'be' a March. This means you will manually have to revoke their March status, taking a stability hit, so they become a vassal. I don't understand why that is the case. It should automatically revert to a vassal state if that is the case or the march should be able to refuse to take more land. You shouldn't get stuck with something because the dev team forgot to tell you.
I played Joseon recently and I made Korchin and Mongolian as a marches. Now I face one side named Russia and other side is separated China and Oirat, but when I open fire to them, the marches always provided body shield 
So for me, I used march very useful at now... Ah, we also need to care about marches reward, that might becomes to weakness. Also I can`t annex them...but that is same as protectorate.
So for me, I used march very useful at now... Ah, we also need to care about marches reward, that might becomes to weakness. Also I can`t annex them...but that is same as protectorate.Protectorates don't take up a relations slot. That's a biggie, especially as Poland where you already have Mazovia and Lithuania.
Yes, protectorates are obviously the best choice, but once they westernize they're no longer protectorates, and you also can't get a protectorate on an advanced nation. From a power gaming perspective marches are only really useful for merchant republics since as a merchant republic you don't want to control a ton of land, you'd rather someone else control it and gain the massive production bonuses from you owning a province or 2 in that trade node(typically the centers of trade), than you ship most of the trade from these nodes into your home node to earn massive amounts of money from it. I guess marches are also useful if you want to take advantage of nations' exceptional NIs, like say keeping Brandenburg/Prussia and/or Sweden around to fight for you since they get such amazing NIs. Other than that regular vassals into integration at a later date seem to still be the best course of action.
Marches are wonderful if you like playing with nice borders but still want control of large portions of the world..
- 4