"Logistic ability"?

So I have noticed that my armies reach starving point after just a few turns in enemy territory. I suppose it is their mere presence in not yet controlled lands that does it, even though it does seem a bit silly that this happens when the army is besieging a coastal city or is only a very short distance from own territory, both being cases in which supplies should be able to be brought to them without too much difficulty. It is said that a general's logistical ability can lessen the impact of being in hostile territory, but how does this work? I would expect it would be a trait that lessens the chance of getting those negative traits, but I haven't seen anything like that on any of my generals while playing as SPQR, KH, Seleukia, or Casse. Is it something that has not been implemented? I would appreciate a clarification.

Some of your generals are better at campaigning outside of your lands. All are not. It will pay to take a look at which ones are better in terms of logistical skills. If you are a nomad tribe, you don't have to worry about it really though.

AFAIK it works like this:

You have a general outside your territory - he starts to 'starve'; this is 'done' through traits, but should your general have logistic skill these starving traits may be partially reversed, thus deleted from his trait list.

"can be reduced by your general's logistical abilities or by pillaging an enemy tile"

this is what the describing of the starving trait says. But my armies never pillage any enemy tile in EB, they are just starving, even if a siege goes on for 8 turns or more. Is that a bug or is it correct? Or do they just pillage if there's no general within the army?

I checked, and it appears that some generals have a "Understanding of logistics" trait. But it seems to me that the entire "supply situation" traits do not work in reasonable fashion: in a multi-turn siege or while marching through a large province your general will almost certainly gain the "Starving" trait, regardless of what time of the year it is, the fertility of the region in question, the proximity to own territory or a coast where your faction has naval superiority. I am guessing the trait cannot check for such factors, but as it stands it does not work in a fashion that seem reasonable to me, and in any case the -3 morale effect is a poor substitute for proper starvation, desertion and mutiny.

Spend some time in a city untill you get the well suplied trait. Makes the process take longer. Generals with high management skills help out. Its never been much of a problem for me. I rarely go past rationing.

IIRC game/trait/script can't decide how much of a loss you get by area. Enemy provience is enemy provience, even if your 3 feet from your border and you have the biggest navy is the history of mankind off the shore. Hardcodded.

For pillaging, it's like that for me. Most of the times they don't, sometimes they do.

If you want super generals with max stars, max morale bonuses, super movement boosts, and no supply problem, do what Teleklos Archelaou said and play as a steppe nomad. As the Saka I have some insane generals, no thanks to this trait
Horde Chief
This man is the potential commander of a Horde. Moving around exploiting resources like a wave of locusts, he should never stop anywhere to settle. Being on the offensive is the only thing that motivates him. His abilities shouldn't be wasted on management duties, which he can't fulfill properly anyway. Commanding an army of horsemen, though, he is a terrible force that cannot be ignored.

+80% Movement, 80% bonus to cash gained from looting, +4 Command when attacking, +5 CavalryCommand, -5 to farming output, -50% bonus on tax income, -50% to trade income

Add that with a bunch of others, like Valorous and Respected, Gifted Leader, Forager, War Chief, Brave, Cavalry Commander of Genius, etc etc I have one Super Saka General of Doom who gets like 18 total stars*curse you limit of ten!* when attacking with cavalry. I love him so much :smitten:


BTW do steppe generals who are greek or persian or indian get logistical problems like normal greeks/whatever?

I'm pretty sure that constructing forts when done marching helpes to alleviate the starvation problem.

What's the worst possible thing with this starving? I never got worse than Belts tightened (-2 morale). Is it possible to start loosing soldiers to starvation? It would be cool ~:)

McHrozni

I don't notice starvation being too much of a problem. As long as you enter enemy territory 'well supplied'. However, I do have a major problem with 'confined to bed' with some generals. This is a major pain because of the movement penalty. Can take years to get back home!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McHrozni

What's the worst possible thing with this starving? I never got worse than Belts tightened (-2 morale). Is it possible to start loosing soldiers to starvation? It would be cool ~:)

---

There is unfortunatly no way to mod in the attrition of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Velvet Elvis

I don't notice starvation being too much of a problem. As long as you enter enemy territory 'well supplied'. However, I do have a major problem with 'confined to bed' with some generals. This is a major pain because of the movement penalty. Can take years to get back home!

---

Hint, let him stay put for a turn (fort if you want, not really necessary), and he should get to "under the weather" rather quickly. A lot better, no? :)

Quote:

---

There is unfortunatly no way to mod in the attrition of war.

---

Pity. Ah well, a morale penalty is still better than nothing (read: vanilla). ~:)

I do think it should be upped, -1 / -3 / -10 or so. The description of Belts tightened is quite severe, and anything worse than that would be rather catastrophic.

McHrozni

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I'm pretty sure that constructing forts when done marching helpes to alleviate the starvation problem.

---

Can someone verify this?

Historically, siege warfare was rife with attrition and starvation. The besieged had to use up their stores of water and food (unless they had some access, such as a stream/well or harbor for imports that wasn't blockaded). The besiegers were usually in enemy territory with supply lines vulnerable to being cut. Read about Caesar's siege of Alesia and you'll see what sort of logistical difficulties the Romans ran into in Gaul.

To me, the system of supply is perfectly rational. It encourages me to keep invasions under one year in length, as well as to assault fortresses/cities after only a few turns, before we get to rationing or belts tightened. Otherwise, I'd just be happy to sit there and let attrition wear away at the enemy's numbers. Once or twice, a sudden sally has broken my besieging army that was basically on half-rations and had a -2 morale hit.

The obvious cheat is to keep your general in your territory, and march your army one turn from your border so that you have 'supplies' (represented by your general in your borders). Then when a fight looks to be in the offing you dash across the border to add your general to the army. Particularly useful for seiges.

Alternatively just suck it up, -3 isn't that bad, especially when you've got a few stars and have the obvious advantage of being a human vs AI.

This thread is 3 years old mate. :wink: (just saying, since there's liable to be people who will get a hissy fit because of this)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur, king of the Britons

This thread is 3 years old mate. :wink: (just saying, since there's liable to be people who will get a hissy fit because of this)

---

Better recycle than re-create. Plus, I don't think that the reduced supplies actually demoralises men. Perhaps it does. I never noticed the difference.

The effect would be much more crucial if it was combined with a loss of, say, half of command stars of the general. Other than that, the captain led armies do not suffer from that effect since it´s done through traits, right?

This thread is actually over FOUR years old, not three. And yes, forts do help with starvation penalties. So does devastating enemy tiles, although you need to be in a different tile each turn, because you can't devastate already devastated tiles. Logistical traits seem to help, but I am not sure on exactly how much. Generally, if you're campaigning through the winter, you should build a fort in the winter, and devastate fertile tiles in the spring-autumn. If you're besieging a city over multiple turns, or even years, then you need to understand that your men would be having trouble foraging just as the enemy would be starving inside the walls. Starvation in EB is a rather mild morale penalty, because the engine's limitations don't allow for supply trains to avoid starvation, or for proper attrition. Nonetheless, a 3 morale penalty is still significant enough to make you want to avoid it, if at all possible. Especially for Celtic factions and the Qarthadastim, they don't have much morale to spare usually, and -3 can sometimes be a 25% increased chance to rout when your units only start with 10-13 morale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur, king of the Britons

This thread is 3 years old mate. :wink: (just saying, since there's liable to be people who will get a hissy fit because of this)

---

That isn't Scutarii's fault: the thread was a ressurected by a spambot posting an innocuous message and a link. I've deleted the spam, but not before Scutarii replied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CashMunny

Nonetheless, a 3 morale penalty is still significant enough to make you want to avoid it, if at all possible. Especially for Celtic factions and the Qarthadastim, they don't have much morale to spare usually, and -3 can sometimes be a 25% increased chance to rout when your units only start with 10-13 morale.

---

Assuming the effects of morale follow a linear regression and not that of another form (e.g., inverse exponentials).