HPS PzC II

[BigDuke66]

DC lacks in other areas, besides the scale is very different as DC is purely operational.
But yes more values might help to model certain aspect more detailed, but some designer can work that out, in the FWW series the designer for example made some HQ units with rather bad ratings to show the lack of good leadership or leadership at all but the units have better ratings to simulate that they are still good trained, so that is already a way of simulating the effects of experience & morale vs. training.

on the other hand the PC series already gives more values than the Napoleonic or Civil War engine gives and remember the PC series is from 1999 so seeing how "old" she is that gal is still pretty but you have to be into it.
And PC is surely more complicated than DC and not easier to learn, tactical level is always more complicated than operational.

And again I have to remind to NOT take anything a simple as it seems, low ammo doesn't necessarily mean they run short on bullets what btw should only happen when they fire, it can already state that the unit conserves ammo because of the encirclement. That is why you can still do defensive fire.
You can also turn to "Explicit Supply". with that you should have supply units that you could place with the "fortress" and units wouldn't go on low ammo but simply use that supply unit till it's empty

And the state of disruption is a matter of the Moral Test, if that one is failed the unit gets combat ineffective(disrupted) and that check is triggered when a pre-test is failed that works like this:
loss / (loss + base-value)
base-value is:
• 5 for platoon and uncombined company units.
• 10 for combined company units consisting of 2 subunits.
• 15 for battalions and combined company units consisting of 3 or more subunits.
So the amount of losses is purely a factor to see if the moral has to be checked, not the base for whether the unit disrupts or not.

And all in this game is "random", it is a matter of how high or low the values are as these make it more likely or more unlikely that a unit disrupts and not simply possible or impossible.
To somehow allow the player to know when that happens makes no sense, certainty is nothing that you get on any battlefield.
And that sometimes your troops don't hold up to what you expected of them is also simply natural on the battlefield, as said there is no certainty on the battlefield.