I use typically 2 HQs per battalion for a NATO army, with 3 reserved for those who habitually cross attach at company level. i.e. UK & USA. 1 HQ per battalion for WP or equivalents, like Arab, African, 3rd World in general, etc.
Without using more than 1 HQ, I find that NATO armies can be disadvantaged against WP as they tend to have larger battalions. A typical WP tank battalion will have HQ +7, at most HQ +10 at full strength. A NATO tank battalion will have say HQ +12-14 at full strength. There's a similar ratio for infantry. NATO's higher command value is therefore offset by less flexibility in manoeuvre, which doesn't seem right.
I can happily justify the 2nd HQ as NATO has much more staff at a much lower level, roughly at a NATO bn = WP regt level, so the second HQ at bn level is effectively a staff/TOC HQ. I often make this one command level lower than the main HQ, e.g. HQ9 for CO, HQ8 for TOC. Cross-attached companies also attract one command level lower for the 'extra' HQs.
Tbh, I don't see rigid doctrine as a penalty, but as a bonus. It can make WP units much more powerful and they are still flexible because of their relatively small size. If WP units are represented at the appropriate force levels (and I don't mean points value), they will have lots of HQs and are pretty scary and difficult to stop! If they are at 1:1 unit strength or anything like against NATO, they will indeed have fewer HQs and will probably get wiped.
I think the command range bit in CWC in particular is a bit obsolete - less so in BKC. I often tend to ignore it or use house rules where things like ECM are involved. There have been previous discussions on various mechanisms in this forum.
Cheers,
MarkJ
