You can/should play CMO with Missions only, or without missions also. Maybe users combine both and play with missions and micro management of th units. How Do you play mostly?

First, I am not skilled enough to get the desired results with missions, second i am a pathologic micro-manager..

While I try to do most of my playing with missions, there are times when your plans go awry and you have to step in. Many times I do that by adjusting missions on the fly. But when its too late, I either unassign or deactivate the mission. But I've also been burned numerous times trying to do too much and having aircraft run out of fuel or RTB unexpectedly.

Would be curious if anyone else does it this way:

I take only existing, realistic existing scenarios, modified/expand them, and build my own response template. Using mission planning and some lua, I build out the initial 4-10 hours. I then tweak missions ,doctrine, WRA, force design, and tactics.

Embracing CMO as a sandbox, I will play the same base scenario (with modifications) over and over to see if desired results are possible.

I selected missions as my answer. 95% of all CMO that is simulated on my machine is done so in background.

Thats basically what I do. I do build a few for own use, but the far majority of them are as you say.

No plan (mission) survives contact with the enemy. CMO allows the player and amazing degree of hands on or hand off control. Let's thank the devs for that. But if I had to play another human in some form or competition, hands on would prevail unless there was an agreement to do otherwise. That says more about human nature than it is a complaint about the AI. Outside a competition, CMO is the best way for mortals to examine autonomous warfare without wreaking the house. I have several indoor micro choppers to prove that.

I do both Missions and micromanagement, with house rules. I form a plan, which I perform with missions. However, I allow myself to alter the missions under certain time constraints. For instance, if something unexpected happens, I can cancel a mission after a 5 minute delay, I can order the launch the Alert 5 after a 3 minute delay, I can have only 10% of any aircraft type on Alert 5, etc.
In tactical combat, I can micromanage to prevent the AI from doing something that is either "situationally stupid" or to execute my intention for the mission that I am otherwise incapable of doing via LUA.

We should make a distinction on micromanaging through adjust missions and managing 30 individual flights. I end up altering 25-30% of my missions either in process or while still waiting to execute. I don't consider changing missions micromanaging.

thewood1 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 2:41 pm We should make a distinction on micromanaging through adjust missions and managing 30 individual flights. I end up altering 25-30% of my missions either in process or while still waiting to execute. I don't consider changing missions micromanaging.

Agree. I am constantly adjusting missions: moving RPs, adding and deleting assets, changing ROE etc I don't consider this micro.

Micro to me is when I grab a flight and give it orders directly, start controlling target allocation etc - I do this a fair amount but always start with a base set of missions and only intervene if I see something I don't like or an unexpected threat.

B

I spend a lot of time saying things like "Nothing good will come of this" and "Ooo...that didn't go well at all."

CV60 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 1:13 pm In tactical combat, I can micromanage to prevent the AI from doing something that is either "situationally stupid" or to execute my intention for the mission that I am otherwise incapable of doing via LUA.

That. Micromanagement is necessary just to keep the AI from being lemmings sometimes. Command AI is good and functional, but it's not Deep Mind.

I try to use missions mostly but micro on an as needed basis.