One quick comment, aimed at nobody in particular, but when designers start designing scenarios based on how the game does work, as opposed to how they think it should work, then a lot of the complaints about "exploiting the engine" will vanish. For example, the dreaded, and oft-maligned "supply drain attack". If designers were to make their units start at 33% readiness, 1% supply, as a normal state, and adjust the supply stockpile rates, movement biases, and attrition divider settings accordingly, you will see that preparatory attacks will have substantially less effect. There is no golden rule that states that unit supply states must be <<<<<....this....>>>> big, or that. Some scenarios will play out better with high supply rates, and prep attacks, others will not. Design for effect, instead of some one to one relationship with some imagined "reality". At the end of the day, the operational focus of the game dictates that the primary gauge of whether one side or the other has won or lost is reflected in where the lines of counters stand on a virtual map, and how much "strength" each side has lost. Designers should keep that in the front of their minds, much more than whether 9th Bicycle Battalion had 6 25mm AT guns, or 12.
Edited for one focus too many
Glad I waded through to find that. Very nicely put.