"Logistic ability"?

[GodEmperorLeto]

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.

[Scutarii]

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.

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

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

[vartan]

This thread is 3 years old mate. (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.

[vollorix]

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?

[CashMunny]

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.

[vartan]

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).

[Ludens]

This thread is 3 years old mate. (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.