Mark, excellent recounting.
You're actually, and probably at your sweet spot now, just shifting weight around on the head of that tiny pin, but you're there.
I'm there too, mostly. Had a conversation with a friend, where I expressed arriving at a confidence level in gaming and rules design, to the level I knew what I could dispense with, which wouldn't change my presentations in the least. Confidence in scenario or game design is as much knowing what you don't need, as knowing what's important to have left, and then that best recognized by players, and this being better and easier to reinforce in their minds, and be well utilized by them (I want participants to being able to play well, and not be lost in an array of unfamiliar mechanisms or obscure detailing).
Gaming a period should make knowing the tactics most important for players, but being unfamiliar with the rules not as critical.
On scenarios and figure counts, it's important that scenarios might reinforce unit structures (this is right down your alley of course), so that players recognize they're operating combat components – this helps convey an organized approach to game play.
"These days", after arriving at the core forces to be involved in a scenario, it's fun to consider what sub-unit (section/detachment-size) element – SP AT, recce section, FO team, etc. might be thrown in to enhance the gameplay opportunity, without shifting the action's perceived balance.
This is sort of my design and presentation philosophy – reinforce what players should be familiar with already (organized unit/weapons structures), and mix in a lesser known combat component(s), to see how well players or each side might best utilize these "auxiliary" elements.
This presentation method gets players into the game quickly, by taking command of those common-known, organized combat units, and then explores how they'll use the less-common sub-units they've been provided (and maybe for then – something new and fun to experience).
