Agreed. Question, in RL, has anyone ever gone into attack with just a basic load?
Videos of M2/M3's, M113s and M1s in Iraq in 2003 showed them with ammo stacked high everywhere. They also took ammo trucks on the thunder run into Baghdad.
Variable ammo allotments could add an interesting wrinkle to AB.
Soviets emphasised the main effort for breakthrough, so a main effort attack may have a priority "all you can carry" ammo allotment, while a diversionary attack a lower priority "lucky you're getting anything" load.
Similarly, the defenders, "hold at all costs, there's more when you need it" for a do but die defense, or "we got nothin', hold long as you can, then bug out" with maybe even less than the standard load.
On that point, the game scenarios have three levels of defense, hasty, prepared (dug-in) and fortified. But all have the same ammo.
Hasty may be "do what you can with what you have", but surely prepared and fortified defenses would always always have as much as could be made available?
I love the game, but thinking about it now, with the standard loads, every battle is diversionary "lucky you're getting anything" vs "we got nothin', hold long as you can, then bug out".
I think we need main effort "all you can carry" vs "hold at all costs, there's more when you need it". That would demand significantly higher attacker v defender ratios.
This brings up game balance issues. But sometimes victory is delaying the enemy for 45 minutes instead of 30