Maybe if you saw my play style you would understand how out of touch with how I play this solution is. I do not use any missions (except ASW patrols) I micromanage everything, take offs and landings, weapon targetting and releases, routes, speeds and altitudes, I conduct aerial combat by keeping tight control of every single aircraft and spend much more time paused giving orders than with the clock running. So while I don't mind Ai assistance as long as I can turn it off (all AI options are off by default when I play) any AI behavior that overrides my own commands or is out of my control is by default in conflict with how I like to play the game.
More to the point, the reason I play this way is that the number of factors that go into every single decision, including somethng as 'simple' as snorkel or battery, is not only orders of magnitude more than what any AI could take into account but often includes information, desires and motivation the AI cannot possibly have. It is therefore utterly impossible to make AI that I would not want to override on occasion and probably quite often, even if you were programming the AI specifically to cater to my own desires and play style.
As for enemy AI, I do not consider that to be my problem. I know for a fact enemy AI is usually a blundering fool, but fortunately limited intelligence and fog of war hide most of that. Computer game AI is closer to running around like a headless chicken than human controlled behavior, once fully exposed. For example in just the last scenario I played, 7 F-16s and Mirage 1s were killed without offering any resistance, just loitering over their airfield while a strike force of 9 Phantom IIs and Mirage F1s also died at the hands of 4 Harriers without firing a single missile in defense. So my opinion is clearly that priority should be given to make the AI at least effectively defend itself, rather than try to second guess whether I want my sub to snorkel or not.
Indeed, each player chooses their own playstyle, and you have yours. However, if you reduce the game to full micromanagement, you can't expect the enemy AI to ever be able to compete with you on an equal footing. As you do recognise that, it means CMANO will always be an assymetric game for you no matter how the AI is improved, unless and until micromanagement-level multiplayer is implemented. in that context, adding more direct control to subs would be more of the same, and I have no disagreement with that.
However CMANO does provide missions, postures and configurations to reduce micromanagement and shift emphasis from hot-seat to planning, and my own playstyle is to make use of that where feasible. Where I avoid it, it's because it's not yet up to the job, but I will do so when that changes. In that context my argument is to enhance that approach, and I see this sub issue as a good example where that could be done. FWIW I also agree to improving AI defence ability, as that will benefit friendly as well as enemy performance if a hands-off approach is used. Symmetry maintained.
As for priorities, well, that's really the team's call - all we can do is to report problems and make suggestions. I see no reason why bug fixes, finessing and major enhancements can't all be worked on in the same time frame, dev man-hours permitting. I don't doubt CMANO is here for the long haul, so all these things may come to pass.
I tend to see "Command" in the title as referring to "Ops Room" commander rather than "cockpit" commander, but that's just me.
< Message edited by guanotwozero -- 2/2/2014 5:33:08 PM >