Another thing to consider:
Command control. Most games have a radius from the HQ as the heart of their command rules. Being outside of command has particular negatives per game. But the player still maintains control.
I would like to see an optional rule (since some players don't like the idea of not having control) where the computer does not allow the player to use his units as he expected. A variety of modifiers could be used to adjust that check. The model I am thinking of is from the Battalion Combat System (BCS) from MMP - a board game. It is called a "SNAFU" roll You roll per HQ to see whether the units of the HQ can move normally, half or zero. Since it is randomly determined, it does add in some interesting situations that are more realistic. For example, planning a concentric attack and then one of your HQ fails its roll and cannot move up to support the combat that you had planned - resulting in a partial, ineffective attack, MUCH more realistic in keeping with operational command. In the game, the WEGO is nice, but it would be interesting to see (as in real life) if a unit doesn't react to your orders whatsoever.
It would be much more difficult to code a "failure" to have the unit do something "random", like move 3 hexes west, so I think an "I didn't get your orders, so I'm staying here" would be sufficient to show loss of command. Naturally, in a Soviet-German game, this would be more pronounced and would better show the command differences. Keeping your units in a small command radius, to me, doesn't do the trick in showing command differences between German and Russian. Unexpectedly losing half of your attack forces on a German armor regiment because of faulty command/control is much more realistic - and frustrating for the Russians!