All these new micro-management tasks really replace the old strat level. Instead of playing general between battles in strat, we spend more time playing platoon leader in the battle prep.
In my opinion, which is a matter or opinion, we really are platoon or company commander.
Close Combat has an interesting history(as I can tell you are well aware) where it was released by Microsoft for 3 releases and then acquired by SSI for a couple more and then re-released by Matrix.
During that process lots of innovations were made and concepts were inherited.
For example(if my knowledge is correct) the idea of a 'cease fire' is really rare in history, but did happen during Operation Market Garden. For that reason it was included in CC2. I have not played CC1 in ~20 years so don't know if ceasefires were there, but I'm assuming they weren't. Maybe I am wrong.
This carried-on into further releases and has become a part of Close Combat, even though it was more of a Market Garden thing. So some of "Microsoft's" reasoning was lost (let us all give credit to Keith Zaboloui AND his crew, who are the real creators of Close Combat).
Close Combat has always been about the soldiers and YOU as their battlefield commander. CC3 even INCLUDED you on the battlefield(and, as I said, I think even CC1). I loved this, because you yourself could earn medals and were always assured a place alongside your soldiers at the end of the game.
I personally liked the feature of including yourself on the battlefield. I found it immersive and challenging. But I think it only existed in CC1(if I recall, which I may be wrong about) and CC3(which only included a single 'fire brigade') In CC2 it was omitted for the logical reason that no human could be in each operational sector at the same time! In CC4 we can assume it was also logically omitted for that logical reason.
In my opinion(thinking of it as the CC legacy), if you are following a single company(or battalion, however they choose to define it) then I think it makes sense to include yourself among them. So in TBF it would make sense to go back to the roots and let the player assume a commanding role on the battlefield(so long as you are playing as American, as Axis doesn't make QUITE as much logical sense when in Grand Campaign, as you command troops from different armies). And give YOU the ability to earn medals and be a hero alongside your men.
To me it is a FORGOTTEN aspect of close combat, obscured by games which follow multiple battle groups. But if you follow ONE battle group, then you should, logically, be able to be included with those men! Right?!?! To me that makes sense. It would be cool to also be able to command one group as a soldier, but still command other groups you are not included in, but that's just like, my opinion, man...
Sorry for the tangent.
My point is that Close Combat is all about the unique individual commander. It shouldn't adhere to old rules from past games, but should perpetually give power to the commander at the platoon/company level.That means YOU determine who you want where, and what weapons and ammo you want to allocate where. It didn't do that in the past because it just lacked design limitations. As the engine has been re-acquired, design limitations have UNDERSTANDABLY lost some of the original inspiration. But being a die hard fan from essentially the beginning, I'll say that the game has always been about the MICRO, and NOT the macro. So it may be more PROFITABLE for Matrix to produce a game that allows you to micromanage AS YOU SEE FIT, based upon randomly generated traits of soldiers (which are outside control of BATTLEFIELD COMMANDER)as well as battlefield performance(which happens while under your command). This is a SELLING POINT and, with the right advertising, can make Matrix LOTS of money($$$$$)
This would actually keep Close Combat UNIQUE from ALL OTHER games and INCREASE SALES OF THE GAME! Because, instinctively, we all want to COMMAND our units and INSTINCTIVELY we grow attachments to our best soldiers. Not only that, WE WANT TO BE THERE! WE WANT TO EARN MEDALS! WE WANT TO FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!!
So the conclusion is: THE MORE MICROMANAGEMENT WE ARE ALLOWED, THE BETTER!
So, in my opinion, we should have maximum power over the allocation and allotment to and for all of our battlefield units!
This is my opinion. But the general point is that Close Combat is a series which has been inherited, and many of the concepts that were inherited were due to undersandable, yet thoughtless/oblivious copying of the previous games, which sometimes meant forgetting the ORIGINAL game's intentions. So if we trace back the roots, we can see the original power of Close Combat, which is:
It is about the INDIVIDUAL ABILITIES. Those of YOURSELF as well as YOUR SOLDIERS! "The thrill of Combat, the POWER OF COMMAND!" (this is literally a selling point of Microsoft)