CandyMan wrote:Guess what guys, Pact tank designers made their tanks fuel efficient lean mean fighting machines to support their mobile warfare attack doctrines. Nato in all their infinite wisdom made their tanks heavy, heavily armored with low fuel economy because of their defensive doctrine. It's realistic and adds a layer of depth to wargame few other RTS's can claim. Seems some people are just to lazy to provide logistical support.
Well that's a nice sweeping statement.
French tanks have good autonomy, German tanks have good autonomy (and look at the number of nations with Leo 1s), Challengers 1 and 2 have decent autonomy, M1s (except the M1A2) and the K1 have decent autonomy as well.
The only tanks that have bad autonomy are the Chieftains, M60, the older tanks (M48 & co) and the Japanese tanks... Which isn't part of NATO.
As for the "too lazy to provide logistic support", as I mentionned earlier, Japan has crippingly low autonomy on its MBTs (300km on the Kyu Maru) and a crappy logistic section to go along. It's not just a lazyness problem.
I have really no idea why Eugen didn't add a logistic Ch-47 for Japan at least, since they bought them in 1995.