Starving is quite harsh. Do you think it is OK?

[Tuidjy]

I know that many people are under the impression that units do not start
getting diseased until the second month of low supplies. This is simply
no true. It had happened to me before, but I had never been 100% sure.

This time I am. In my last game, I have been fighting a player with a deadly
dominion who started completely ruining his provinces once he realized he could
not stop me. I never had an army starve more than one turn, but I was getting
tons of diseased troops. But on the last turn, I had a reinforcing army, fresh
from being recruited, reconquer a province that fell to a barbarian horde. I
have the previous turn, so I am sure that none of my troops were diseased. The
barbarians were shot to pieces before they made it to my ranks. The army started
from a recruiting province, where troops stay for a while - I doubt there is a
disease site there. The reconquered province has four sites, and none of them is
disease generating.

Still, the army had only 95 out of 156 supplies. Out of 136 troops and 5
leaders, 101 were hungry, and 5 got a disease. It is not the end of the world,
but the community knowledge says that troops do not get diseases the first month,
and the number of starving troops is somehow related to number of lacking
supplies. This does not seem to be the case to me.

Is this working as intended? Personally, I do not like it. I abandoned a game
when 75% of a 600 strong army got diseased because it lacked about 20 units of
supplies. I was fighting LA Ermor, I got a bloody 'lucky' event from his lucky
domain, ended up with 0 out of the 20 supplies required, and bang, game over.
At the time, I let myself be convinced that I had left my army rest on top of a
disease site. Now I believe that it was a result of starving for one turn in a
strong death dominion.

So, do you guys think that troopers should get diseases the first month? From a
realism point of view, it's fine. But I think it is really annoying, because
there is no way to check supply before attacking, and unless your army carries
enough wine to have heavily negative supply requirements, you always risk losing
troops to disease and starvation.

[Sir_Dr_D]

What I would like is for scouts to be able to report on the supplies avaible in a province, before an army gets there.

[Saint_Dude]

I have also seen units get diseased after starving for a single month. Never been quite sure though if it was due do extreme starvation or due to some undiscovered disease spreading site. Perhaps death scales increase the severity of extreme starvation?

While it would complicate things a bit, I do think that starvation should be relative. If a squad with a supply requirement of 20 enters a prov with only 5 supplies, they are operating on 25% rations and should be considered to be in a state of extreme starvation; diseases should be rampant in short order. Conversely, if a squad with a supply requirement of 1000 enters a prov with 980 supplies, they are operating on 98% rations. They may be considered hungry, but hardly starved to the point that diseases would start afflicting large numbers of units.

[Tuidjy]

I would agree with Saint Dude about starvation being relative. Care must be
taken to use the actual food requirements, as opposed to the displayed ones.
For exactly, if an army needs N supplies, has an effective requirement of E after
applying mage bonuses and items, and the province has A supplies available, the
severity of the starvation should be (E-A)/N as opposed to (E-A)/E

[Cor2]

I wondered about this. Good news for LA Ermor.

[Xietor]

I think starvation is fine as it. There are advantages to playing a nature race. And there are disadvantages to bring large armies into foreign lands without nature items to feed them.

Sometimes you have no choice. But ideally an invading army consists of some of you r better human troops, with a mixture of mechanical men, undead, trolls etc that need not eat.

Obviously this may slow down your advance to assemble such an army. But that is a tactical decision. Do you march in quickly and take starvation losses-or move in at a slower pace, but well prepared and not having starvation as an issue?

These issues arise in other contexts. In the Big Game, do I hire tons of tough independents for a short term gain(before disease make them useless), or do i move slower and use only cold blooded troops/undead etc that are immune to MA Ctis' deadly dominion?

[Sombre]

Vicious and apparently not relative starvation being justified by being a handicap on national troops? Yeah because they need more handicaps.

[PvK]

You can also build forts to generate supplies.

Starvation effects are relative, but also randomized.

I would like options to change the way disease works for some games, either only happening to units who were starving the turn before, or having chances for people to recover naturally if left to rest in supply. And of course ideally, the AI would take some care to avoid starving its armies.