Thank you! I have a theory about wargaming, at least, WWII to contemporary: Although it's not a simulation, we get good results when we try to emulate the point of view of a commander.
A standard rule for "what is a commander interested in" is "Two Down, One Up". That is, if you are trying to emulate a battalion commander's point of view, your movable individual units should be platoons, with exceptions for special purpose assets. So stands should represent platoons or special purpose sections. The one up means the battalion commander should also be interested in the brigade assets that can support him. Higher level assets might be involved, but only if they are assigned to the brigade and thereby become brigade assets.
If you are trying to emulate the brigade commander, the whole thing slides up one notch, and for a company commander, down one.
This means a typical game ought to feature somewhere between 6 and 18 "line units" and assorted special units. An OP might represent 3 men but if it's important to the scenario, put it on the board!
With very rigid structures like the Cold War Soviet armies, okay to have miniatures representing platoons for a regiment commander's force, because the platoons will stay neatly clumped in their companies and the company will be effectively one unit. But today even the Russians have embraced more flexible forces, which usually requires a more professional army. So aside from the old Cold War Commies, a scenario should have 10-24 miniatures for a player. That usually produces a good, flowing game. And realistic, because the player doesn't have control at levels a real CO wouldn't. (Or I should say shouldn't. A brigade commander CAN position individual squads, but should restrain the impulse)