I'm still taking notes, though proceeding along historical lines to the extent that I can. My debate wasn't so much for using TO's for deployment options, but of placing formations in their general area of operations vs. units in their specific historical hex -- leave it to the player whether to grab every hex they historically possessed, opt for a shorter more defensible line, make it stronger in one area vs. another, etc. Though initially planning on starting with a 2 turn cease fire, I'm trying to phase that idea out completely - and emphasize the starting historical situation and let both players really feel the gravity of the opening turns.
Achieving full historical accuracy, IMO, is an exercise in futility - especially if one is a perfectionist - which I can be and also find tends to result with low productivity and project completion; simply strive to get as close as one can and live with the errors. Point of relevance with TOAW is that as designers we are way the hell far more open to making errors than just about any game system out there. Up through TOAW, the vast majority of games represented units as as 6-4 or a 8-4-2, saying nothing of what went into this tank brigade or that infantry division. At times historical data may not be available, may be unreliable, may offer multiple interpretations - so we can only make an educated guess, ask others who know better, or when the deadline is hanging...wing it.
Graymane brings up reasonable issues on the basis of size of a scenario - and really, when comparing all of the really, really large wargames out there - almost all of them try to paint the picture at the historical start, but most everything in the way of reinforcements is based upon Player Buy Options...and that's been something of a dilemma, too, for what I'm trying to do. Unit reassignment from one formation to another makes historically accurate formations almost impossible in long scenarios. Anyways, watching discussion and continuing to work...