Thanks for your thoughts, guys. Indeed, I appreciate that the playing styles differ. For me, the thing in CMO is the scalability of the gameplay. While I need to handle an entire operation, the most intensive moments are often encountered when micromanaging, say, a four-ship of fighters surprised by a superior opponent, or a submarine trying to pull out something clever when unexpectedly encountering an enemy task force, an overwhelming but juicy target.
For me, if this was a command room / mission execution simulator, I'd prefer an approach where the AI was more independent and "creative" in the way it does its business. Also, I'd prefer the mission planning interface being rather different from what it is now. There are lots of stuff that, if this was the emphasized focus, we'd be missing: greatly increased fog-of-war necessitating the use of command platform units, perhaps even impersonating the player, levels of EMCON (all the way to radio silence / receive only), navigation issues, mis-identifications, technical problems, individually modeled SA at unit level... so on.
The same applies if this was a strategic level simulation: top brass really do desk jobs. Big decisions, supply and logistics.
I think CMO captures a great niche: a low-level strategic / high-level tactical. Personally I feel that added communication disruption functions, unless very nicely utilized by scenery designer, takes away more from the "high-level tactical" than it adds to "low-level strategic" in how the game and its scenarios are currently mostly set up.
That said, I don't mind at all enhancing the capabilities of the game/sim platform, I just hope them being used in moderation!