again - If supporting units are integral part of the unit, then IT NEEDS to have stats coresponding it... THEREFORE it needs to get AA values corresponding to integral AAA guns, it has to have more ammo and fuel than what is extrapolated from actual tank ammo load and fuel capacity/ combat range... YET, because these things are not part of unit stats, you cannot expect them to be INCLUDED...
Actually these things can be easily modded by modifying the AA or max fuel values of each tank unit. But when it comes to max fuel I prefer to use it as a tool to help to simulate reliability, which is not included in the game as per se. So for example units equipped with tanks like early production Tigers or Panthers (which were known to have teething problems and frequent break downs), have fairly low max fuel so that they have to stop for "refuel" (repair) more often then other, more reliable tank units. And some time later, after the early problems are fixed, these can be upgraded to basically the same unit, but with more max fuel (= higher reliability).
As for ammo I do not see a problem: a self-propelled gun like the ISU-152, which could only carry like 20 rounds, had to be very careful not to get into protracted battles as it could use up its ammunition very quickly and then it had to retreat to meet with its supply trucks to replenish its ammunition. Obviously it takes time and a vehicle like this has to do it more often than others. This disadvantage is nicely simulated in the game by the low max ammo count and the frequent need to replenish ammo. With other words, it does not matter that the supply column has a lot more ammunition, the vehicle itself cannot take it into the battle due to the lack of storage space, and once it runs out of ammo, it has to disengage and retreat to the nearby supply trucks, which for obvious reasons cannot follow it too close to the site of the ground battle. And while doing so it cannot participate in the battle = it misses a turn in the game's terms.
As for AA guns, I do note necessarily think that they need to be seen as part of a tank unit as there are AA units in the game (as opposed to support trucks), and players can decide if the want to provide additional air defense to a tank unit or not.
besides, those "repair trucks" are present in form of prestige cost for fixing damaged unit... If you lose prestige you cannot repair...
Repair trucks are not only needed to repair actual battle damage, which should indeed require some resources or "prestige", but also for regular maintenance as ww2 tanks had a tendency to break down quite often due to mechanical problems. And if the soft and vulnerable repair trucks are destroyed in an air attack and cannot be replaced fairly quickly the armoured unit will lose its actual strength as the tanks which break down for mechanical reasons cannot be fixed. If it happens in the face of an advancing enemy, then the tank crews have no other choice but to blow up their tanks otherwise they would be captured by the enemy intact.
and guess what Panzer General had for Strategy Bombers??? YES, they could reduce amount of prestige by bombarding cities...
Actually strategic bombers in Panzer Corps can do the same, but it does not happen always, and the prestige penalty is so smal, usually no more than 10-12 points, that most players do not even notice it. Additionally, the AI much less often attacks empty cities than in Panzer General, so it is hard to spot this phenomenon.
so again, why didnt they add it there for all air attacks???
I do not know, maybe you should ask the developers. But my guess is that they just wanted to replicate the rule system of Panzer General and they did not really give much thought to possibly improve it.
would make more sense than some artificial destruction of tanks, WHICH IS PROVEN TO BE NOTHING BUT A MYTH.
I also believe that the large numbers of tanks destroyed by aircraft is a myth, there is no argument here. The argument is that I (we) also believe that although aircraft could not destroy the well armoured tanks in large numbers, they could in fact destroy the supporting trucks without which the tank unit cannot remain active for long. Therefore the overall strength of the tank unit is being reduced which can lead to the destruction of tanks by their own crews, as it often happened in the war.
and btw, how exactly then you wanna model a fact that for every killed tank, there were 10 Sturmoviks shot down???
That 10 shot down Sturmoviks might have destroyed just one tank, but also let's say 30 trucks before being shot down. Those 30 trucks might have supplied 10 tanks with ammo, fuel, spare parts and maintenance. After the destruction of those trucks 10 tanks had to be abandoned and blown up during a retreat by their crews due to the lack of fuel and/or spare parts after they broke down.
or that Tactical Air lost over 9000 tactical bombers over Normandy?
I do not really know where this figure comes from. Now I checked a few sources and it looks like all the combined Allied losses in June 1944 was about 1200 aircraft. And this figure includes British and American heavy bombers and fighters as well, not only tactical bombers. Maybe it refers to a longer period?