One of the nice things about the game, Pekische, is that you can play it to different levels of immersion and interference. You in fact take on the 'roles' of many different commanders, I suppose. It's not possible to play it otherwise. (You can just give an order to the on-map boss, to take something etc, but that's very limited and unreal [for starters you would need to be able to ask he/she to split their force between objectives, which you can't] and the results are not impressive - as has been mentioned many times, the game works best if you give your orders at roughly battallion level - which means, in effect, that you are 'role-playing' many different people.) So, as Wodin hints, I wouldn't worry about playing it whichever way you see fit.
As to why I don't leave support fire to the AI sometimes (for example, the crucial secure bridge tasks), I just don't trust it, and with good reason. We know now that if you give a Bn a secure bridge task with 'Arty Direct Spt only' ticked then you will not get a preliminary bombard, and a bombard is essential, I think, if you really want that bridge intact. Ditto the AI plans to attack - I have rarely seen the AI park a company with a good field of fire, then suppress the target whilst another company attacks. This is likely because such things happen at the abstracted sub-company level (which is as it should be - the idea of an entire company providing supression sounds not very authentic, perhaps) - with individual platoons within a company doing that role whilst other platoons within the same company attack. But you don't see any of that, and it is certainly the case that if you take matters into your own hands and plot it all manually then the results are more guaranteed, or, at the very least, you can see them, and know that what you wanted to happen is happening. I just think of it as me getting into my command car, driving down there and telling the company commanders exactly what I want. :)
< Message edited by phoenix -- 4/3/2013 9:08:11 AM >