From: Washington D.C.
While I certainly love the idea of "A game that does it all", I highly doubt an interface between CMO and DCS or Falcon BMS would be that much fun gameplay-wise in the end.
A lot of people love that idea. Many have tried all have failed. The problem is that Command is really only good at one thing: the kill chain, and even then it has things that could be improved. It also has some limited ability to look at some types of sustainment. Ultimately, Command offers a high tactical perspective on warfare, is very technology oriented, and favors air and naval warfare still, even as the land warfare model improves. Command, fundamentally, is about hitting targets, killing people and breaking their stuff. At some point, warfare stops being about that, and becomes about politics, economics, logistics, scheduling and policy, and the fighting is just a symptom of that. At that level the questions to ask and the knobs to turn to answer them are completely different.
While I've seen attempts to handle that kind of stuff in Command, they've all been horrible and either produced results that weren't believable or else amounted to the scenario author TELLING the players what he thought then answer was, and expecting them to accept it as truth. A good scenario should never tell you how to fight the fight, EVER.
The other problem is that with "games that do everything," you run into the problem of too many knobs. After playing the same scenario over and over again, and asking yourself, "Did what I decide to do matter?" if there's too many knobs to turn, after some point, you're left saying, "I don't know!" and you're not really learning anything.
Since part of the entertainment value of games like Command is that they allow people to learn things and ask questions about some national security issues, that actually harms the game's value.