It can complicate a boardgame, where the player has to be the quartermaster who deploys the logistics network and moves supply tokens around.

Within the context of a computer game it should be comparatively easy to implement though.

Cheers

Thomas

<t> In response, and reflecting rather unfavourably on the designers/developers, there are 20 year old boardgames out there (MMP's OCS game series has been mentioned before), that manage to portray the real-world shortage of relevant supplies to sustain (large scale) offensive operations rather well ...

<t> I'm not a big fan of introducing "attack supply points", whether tied to APs or not, into the game. This would just be another level of abstraction or even gimmick.<br/>
<br/>
The game already models key logistics factors that are relevant for that: ammunition, fuel and general supply.<br ...

<t> Historically the war in the east ended in May 1945 with a crushing soviet victory, having conquered all of eastern Germany, including Berlin, and seeing Hitler die. Stating the obvious here, we all know that. But if we apply historical hindsight alone to the games' victory conditions, we forget ...

<t> Actually, to address your immediate point Alfonso, I'd rather ask the Soviet player why he conducted this war winning offensive in the AGC/AGN area instead of where it apparently mattered with regard to determination of victory conditions - given that the VP conditions are transparent to both ...

<t> From my point of view having any kind of victory points as measure of overall success only applied at the very end of the game turns the game itself into operational warfare for operational warfare's sake, which is pretty ahistorical.<br/>
<br/>
Armies went to war and waged certain campaigns ...