The Problem With Marches...

[Thrake]

Main point of marches to me is the manpower bonuses. When I'm in a war spree, normal vassals manpower goes down very quickly because it lets its armies trapped a bit easily. Normal vassals end up recruiting mercs to make up for manpower, but it can't be as efficient as a march with much more manpower. I personnaly use marches, but I've always kept vassals around for a long while; I would recon that the downsides are quite of a deterent. I'm not sure what could make the whole system better while keeping balance though.

As for making a march, that's in the diplo view of your vassal. Perhaps you don't have art of war but it's needed to make the march?

 

[clykke]

As for making a march, that's in the diplo view of your vassal. Perhaps you don't have art of war but it's needed to make the march?

Thank you. I do have art of war. Guess I haven't been looking the right place. When I get home I'll see if I can find it. But now I am reconsidering. Perhaps creating a march is not such a good idea after all, according to this thread.

 

[gaius valerius]

Yeah I don't think they should be like that.
If any dev reads this : Any special reasons beside trying not to make them too abuseable/strong that I can't think top off my head for limiting relations to 100? If not, I think it should be removed.
I see marches could be useful on nations like Albania, though they are too weak to make it efficient.
I don't know, haven't tried yet but if they were so strong guess the forum would be filled up with march complaint threads so.

Come again? You are feeding a very independent militaristic vassal provinces... and you expect him NOT TO EVER BE UNRULY?

If anything vassals in EU IV are ridiculously docile, it is both abhorrent, appaling and not really making for much fun or challenge. A march is in essence a militarised vassal and you expect him to yield to your every command as you make him grow in power. How does that make ANY sense Vassals and marches should be able to turn on their overlords, try to break away, have ambitions of their own, perhaps supported by foreign powers.

 

[RobRoy3]

I dont get one thing, why is PI increasing amount of things that uses diplo slots, but does not increase amount of diplo slots we can get?

Yeah, this applies even more to the other things introduced in recent patches that never make sense to use, on their own. Forced military access, Trade Agreements, even older mechanics like Guarantees and Royal Marriages would work better if they had their own dynamics and limits. As it stands now, you generally use these things together, often just as relationship boosters, for nations you are trying to get into long term alliances and/or vassalization.

If anything vassals in EU IV are ridiculously docile.

Well, that's certainly true. I'd much prefer a realistic fear of overpowered vassals or marches as a natural check against making them too powerful, rather than any artificial limit on their sizes (or numbers). Maybe they shouldn't be quite as eager to turn on their overlords as the "Game of Thrones" vassals, but history is closer to that extreme than the current uber loyal, docile, faithful vassals we have now.

 

[Freudia]

As it stands now, you generally use these things together, often just as relationship boosters, for nations you are trying to get into long term alliances and/or vassalization.

The sad thing is that my biggest fear with the game is that instead of making more diplo slots available, or making all these things require different kinds of diplo slots (ergo you have x number of royal marriage slots available, x number of alliance slots, etc.), they'll just make all those things not affect relations.

"Too gamey" etc. Of course, if they went that route instead, well... It'd certainly solve the diplo slots issue I guess. It'd just make nothing worth using and the only vassals you'd take would be those acquired through force.

 

[Chlodio]

Devs said that if you make marches too strong compared to your strength they will attempt to break free (IMO that is just logical), thus trick is to be stronger than them.

 

[Xinkc]

My problem with marches is how punitive it can be to change them back. I agree that their should be some kind of downside but the stab hit just seems harsh. Makes Diplomatic Ideas more desirable I guess.

 

[finkellll]

The only March I make is Finland (playing as muscovy).

Release them from Novgorod, feed all cores from Novgorod and Sweden, and then sell provinces to remove the border friction from Lithuania/PLC (you can still form Russia after doing this).

Allows me to ally PLC when it comes time to trash the Ottomans/Timurids alliance (PLC loves muscovy when there is no border friction). and it also allows me to go east without having to worry about the western front.

 

[yerm]

Marches need to be completely removed as they are. Take the building with it.

March should be a designation given to your specific provinces that follows similar logic to a trade company. A march designation should hike the LA and put a floor on it, if not make it 100%. It should ignore LA for military applications, and exchange tax and trade value for increased defensiveness and manpower, and the loss of tax value should be balanced so that it cannot lower effective force limit contribution.

The idea that a march is anything other than an integrated but autonomous extension of the nation is silly. Clumping them with vassals is just poor game design.

 

[dstarsboy]

Come again? You are feeding a very independent militaristic vassal provinces... and you expect him NOT TO EVER BE UNRULY?

If anything vassals in EU IV are ridiculously docile, it is both abhorrent, appaling and not really making for much fun or challenge. A march is in essence a militarised vassal and you expect him to yield to your every command as you make him grow in power. How does that make ANY sense Vassals and marches should be able to turn on their overlords, try to break away, have ambitions of their own, perhaps supported by foreign powers.

You granted them this independence and granted them ability to become richer and more powerful than they were as a vassal, and in return for that, they should be MORE unruly and turn on their overlord? Does that make more sense? Given the alternative is to keep them weak and take their income, I can see why they would be upset with you..

As Hansa, I had Brandenburg as a march, I was always around 4-5 provinces larger than them, but they were absolutely worthless below 60BT. They aren't helpful against Poland, Austria, Denmark or France... So I fed them Saxony and a bit of Bohemia so they would become more useful and then they got hostile at me. (Didn't know that they lose bonuses past 60BT, though, I'll change my strategy with them).

As it stands right now, its always 100% better to integrate them and simply use that relation slot on an alliance with one of those 4 countries instead of creating a march.

 

[Alerias]

To be honest, those four nations would serve better as vassals, in any situation I can envision. The only exception might be Moldavia, for a HAB or TUR player who is focusing in the opposite direction and expects that border to be static.

Are a French-united HRE with no ambitions in eastern Europe I released Prussia as a march. It can keep both Scandinavia and Poland at bay and once sacked Moscow.

 

[-Malovane-]

The only March I make is Finland (playing as muscovy).

Release them from Novgorod, feed all cores from Novgorod and Sweden, and then sell provinces to remove the border friction from Lithuania/PLC (you can still form Russia after doing this).

Allows me to ally PLC when it comes time to trash the Ottomans/Timurids alliance (PLC loves muscovy when there is no border friction). and it also allows me to go east without having to worry about the western front.

Finland is particularly good as a march - I've been keeping them in that function permanently. They have good national ideas for it, and the biggest bonus of all is that they're Western tech - so if you keep relations healthy, you're always getting that -10% mil tech cost from "trading in western arms".

Other good march possibilities for Russia include Polotsk and Smolensk (if you want to tackle Poland/Lithuania early). Feed a fair amount of the Byelorus/Ruthenian territories to them, and you're good to go. Polotsk gets decent defensive ideas (+fort defense and +attrition - quite similar to Finland), whereas Smolensk gets the best artillery in the game, and great siege ability. Lots of troop support in both cases.

Also fun - becoming a March of Muscovy. If you don't want to be annexed as their vassal, just wait a bit until they've screwed up in a war, and they'll accept your request to be one (at least I was able to as Perm). From then on, just fabricate claims and enjoy the benefits.

 

[Prom_STar]

Finland is particularly good as a march - I've been keeping them in that function permanently. They have good national ideas for it, and the biggest bonus of all is that they're Western tech - so if you keep relations healthy, you're always getting that -10% mil tech cost from "trading in western arms".

You don't get western arms trade if they're a subject nation. The modifier also reduces all tech cost, not just military FYI.

 

[-Malovane-]

You don't get western arms trade if they're a subject nation. The modifier also reduces all tech cost, not just military FYI.

Quite strange, since they're the only Western nation I've been friendly with (in Russia games I'm very aggressive on the Western front), and I've been getting the bonus (at least I was a last week). Will double check saves to see what's going on.

Edit: oh, and there's other techs? I spend all my admin points coring and culture converting.

 

[AurochsAway]

Quite strange, since they're the only Western nation I've been friendly with (in Russia games I'm very aggressive on the Western front), and I've been getting the bonus (at least I was a last week). Will double check saves to see what's going on.

Edit: oh, and there's other techs? I spend all my admin points coring and culture converting.

Due to some bugs marches were able to avoid normal vassal mechanics like not having rivals. This may be another one.

 

[mtgdjs]

Due to some bugs marches were able to avoid normal vassal mechanics like not having rivals. This may be another one.

Well that would be a good reason to have a march, so maybe its not a bug?

 

[AurochsAway]

Well that would be a good reason to have a march, so maybe its not a bug?

Well it's a good reason to have a vassal too, even more so than in a march where there are other benefits, so I doubt it's WAD considering they removed it from vassals.

 

[dstarsboy]

Someone mentioned making papal states a march, which is 100% the perfect use case for this feature. Other than this scenario, i can't think of why anyone would choose not to keep the vassal.

 

[ashmizen]

Well that would be a good reason to have a march, so maybe its not a bug?

It seems to me like Marshes should have the same rivals as their overlord. After, if their key purpose was fighting these enemies, why wouldn't they get the rival bonus from it?

Also, Japan's "vassals" are really screwed up. Despite being able to wage war, and do everything that a normal nation can, daimayo can't set rivals. Or rather, players can't - I get -75 relations from being a rival to an AI daimayo, but I can't make him (or anyone) a rival.

 

[-Malovane-]

Due to some bugs marches were able to avoid normal vassal mechanics like not having rivals. This may be another one.

Checked last night - it no longer works. Oh well, must have been fixed with whatever other subject fixes it had.