Why states and not provinces?

[FraZi]

If I fight in a province and its infrastructure is destroyed, not only the units that are in that province where the battle occurred suffer the reorganization penalty, but also the divisions that are in several provinces only because they are in the same state, since that the infra is built by state.
Then .. Not only do the divisions that fight in the front suffer but also those that are in the rear.
Does this make any sense?

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

Since infrastructure represents ability to transport supply (and units) - it's not only (rali)roads themselves, but also whatever contraptions are used for said transport. Can always assume that some of those got damaged in the fight and need to be replaced. As for "why" - for simplicity reasons would be my guess; entire supply system is simplified to the point it makes little sense in more than few cases.

 

[seattle]

You know what's even worse?
Recently in Russia:
I (Germany) occupy one half of a state, the Soviets the other half.
Both sides suffer attritional damage from low infra.

I build up the infra of the state as owner of that state's capitol.
Apparently my engineers built shiny new roads and autobahns even behind the front in Soviet territory because their supply increased as much as did mine.