"Manufacturing need" is a strategy that we will follow the day that we have exhausted all our good ideas, maybe in 20 years.
As hinted, the loader's tasks are observation, radio monitoring, providing close security to the vehicle, and physical activities that require strength, agility, and coordination. All this screams for a simulator cabin environment and even where customers have such environments they do not always want the loader present in exercises because there isn't much to learn or to train for them. None of the simulator cabins goes so far as to integrate a fully operational loader's position with mock cartridges that could be loaded into an actual breech.
Such trainers exist, and they are great (if underutilized), but nobody wants the added complexity of the mechanical and electric or hydraulic components involved in a platoon trainer because then you also have to add the Krauss-Maffei mechanic's bill for maintenance every other month. It may be hard to understand, but armies do not have bottomless pockets of cash for everyone to grab. The US Army may come closest to this idea, representing more than 50% of the world's demand for land system silmulators, but even the US Army can afford only three mega simulation facilities (Germany, Korea, USA), and even there many of the vehicles are represented by generic mockups.

Is the Belgian Army happy about their DF30 and DF90? Do they think they can win wars with them?
Hell, no! It's what they can afford. If given the chance they would pick the big tanks without hesitation. But they don't have the money for MBTs, so they sure as hell don't have the money for elaborate cabin trainers, let alone some with loading cycle electro-mechanical setups. Instead, it's desktop trainer stations with control handle replicas and triple touchscreen environment. And while the Belgian Army may be a particularly crass example, they are closer to the typical situation than the US Army's CCTT that aspires to assemble an entire brigade combat team in a single simulator factility. Look up the size of tank fleets in countries like Australia, Denmark - this information can easily be found on Wikipedia, FAS, SIPRI; often enough you don't even reach triple digits, it's eye watering. And we're not even touching the question of recruiting. SOme armies are 25% understrength because they can't get young men to join. That's the prime reason for opening armies for women (an entirely different chapter of its own, let's not go there). Don't pay much attention to the feminist "empowerment" talk - that's just window dressing to put lipstick on the pig of manpower shortage. And even if you have a small tank fleet, decent simulators, and enough people to get trained in them, often enough the soldiers are pulled from their regular duties to help an undermanned police in the anti-terror operations against Islamofascists, or to deal with forest fires, floodings, and other non-military tasks that get thrown at them in addition to actual operations abroad.

It's perfectly fine to tell me that you want loaders' positions in Steel Beasts because you think they would make a great addition; you don't have to worry about the implications for workplans or effort-to-reward ratio, nor should you. But at least trust me when I tell you that the balance is not favorable. We can agree to disagree about the "fun" point; I think it would be a high-effort novelty that everybody would play with for ten minutes and then never go back to it simply because it'd be very boring. But hey, that's just my opinion, and just because I've been a tank officer doesn't mean that I always have the right answer to every possible design decision in Steel Beasts. And even when I do - different people, different preferences. I'm happy to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of such a change.
But please don't use promises of exceptional wealth and business success if only I would add (X) to Steel Beasts, or lower the price, or put it on Steam, or that (X) is actually very easy, or that we should have switched to DirectX 12 in 2009...
I'm honest with you, please be honest with me and the way you argue. Refuting an outlandish claim without violating the NDAs under which I am takes time. I want to take you seriously, so I'm happy to provide background information why we do things the way we do. Still, my average work day only has 14 hours and even if I work on the weekends I'm on a time budget. Whenever I write stuff in a thread like this, I'm not making sh!t up, I don't hide behind "secrets you're not supposed to know" or take other shortcuts (and neither do Ronin, or Gibsonm). But that requires that you keep your side of the deal, no phony arguments.

It's perfectly sufficient to say "I want (X) because I think it would be fun"; and even if you bring up a convincing argument that changes my mind, your expectation should be moderated by the fact that implementing features takes time, and that the weeks before a release are about the worst possible timing. Three months after a release: Perfect timing. You had time to digest the new things, we have received the first wave of bug reports and probably released a patch already. Now we can lean back and see what we can do better in coming versions.