ORIGINAL: No idea
The key about the decisions I propose (I gave just examples that had come out of my mind, but they could be completely different) is not the ability to make things better for one side or the other, but giving you the ability to adapt to circunstances (for example, if the german player has had several panzer units encircled and destroyed he can probably say goodbye to the game, but what if he can decide to concentrate on P IVs instead of goign for Panthers and Tigers? That would give him more production, thus, he will get his panzer divisions again much quicker)
This is 1941 in Germany, not JIT production on assembly lines. And frankly, bad play (and this is several panzer units getting encircled) should be punished accordingly and not get fantasy-like get-out-of-jail card to soften the impact.
Yes I am aware of HoI serie, but I think this game could benefit a lot from a bit of strategic decisions making, not changing its scope or nature, but expanding it a bit.
This series is an operational war game. You are changing its scope with all that you want.
PS. Regarding the critique about the political decision I said, yes, I am aware that it is the old "if nazis werent nazis", but there are many things in the game that go against what happened irl or are stretched to make the game more interesting or even possible to play, so why not introducing some political elements? As far as they are plausible, I see no problems. After all, nazi ideology didnt dicatate that kicking slvas out of East Europe had to be done during the war. They could have waited unitl later.
What you suggested above is not plausible. The Germans were acutely aware of their inability to supply their army and the local population in the east. Their method of feeding their men was based on requisitioning from the local population while letting them starve. You are creating a fantasy setting here.
Frankly, all your ideas fit right into the mold of what Hearts of Iron provides, giving me the impression that you are at the wrong series here.
Giving you options to soften the impact of your mistakes is something fully realistic. It is what everybody does when he realizes he has gotten into trouble. Expanding on the options you might have in such a situation is a good move, imho. Many players end their games (especially as german player) after a handflu of turns simply and plainly because they have commited a few mistakes (and not big ones like the one I mentioned). That is not fun at all, expecially from the soviet player point of view, but I can understand the german player, because he knows he is fu... and he cant do anythign about it.
My examples of decisions could be better, but I still think it would make wonders for the game replayability and enjoyment if we could take some strategic decisions. Replayability and enjoyment are never bad for a game. I know those are subjective terms, and that is why I give my opinion.