Thanks for the reply.

For example a strategic game where every units can disobey your orders when they want. This would be frustrating.

There is a game called Graiveteam Tactics that does this. It's a large scale tatical game with pretty huge battles but it isn't a grand strat game like HoI4. Units are affected by moral (they won't attack across open ground into machinegun fire after half their squad died last time they tried it) and also having their orders delivered (if you don't lay wire to your troops and they are far away then you will have to wait for a runner to dlivre the orders).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nWbBuAVrBQ

Secondly, there is another reason why you can directly order units instead of using only battle plans. A lot of hoi players are perfectionist and want to manage every movements as a wargame.

I'm not saying stopping them, just a chance that a lvl 4 commander won't carry out a suicidal attack. You would just have to replace him with a lower skilled one or another lvl 4 one who hopefully obeys. It could be affected by things like national unity or political power to.

So it would be a minor 'debuff' for people only concerened with game mechanics, etc but a big improvement from a RP and realism angle.

You could even make it not affect orders given manually so only people who enjoy using battleplans will be affected by it. And I'd guess the people who like battleplans are the ones who like more historical simulation side of the game. (Hey if the player is Hitler then overiding your genreals with manual kind of represents him overriding his commanders! lol)

If you stop them, you'll see the repercussions on the forums for weeks and months.

That is not really a good argument. It would be a very bad thing if Paradox just listened to the loudest critical voices on the forum over everything!

I mean have you seen what some people are saying about HoI4? It's not perfect but it's a pretty good game. If I listened to what some are saying I'd hate the game.

Thirdly, how can you do the difference between a battle plan doomed of failure and a bait for a greater offensive on another front. For example, attacking the Maginot line directly is a suicide but it will occupy the French troops when you'll send most of your forces through Belgium or the Alps.

I'd say it would have to take several factors into account. One would be the size of the offensive, if you order someone to take the Maginot line then it would have a lot of casualties but is a potentially feasible objective, whereas sweeping to the Atlantic with unsupplied infantry is not just risky but stupid. Also generals already have a warning in the game about whether they think a plan will work, on the little orders button if you get a red exclamation mark and hover over it it will tell you the general/marshall doesn't think the plan should be carried out yet and why. So they could use that mechanic and then have high level commanders have a chance to refuse the order/resign based off how much against the attack they are and national unity as well.

I don't know about the precise mechanics but I think it's definitely something that could be made to work with some tinkering.