We try new things from time to time in scenarios. We are trying mission orders in this one, and we'll see what people think. For anything we try, there are people who hate it, whatever it is that we try. The question is whether or not a large majority of players like it.
If people in general dislike it, we will take the feedback into account and do things differently next time.
The issues we are trying to improve are as follows. We want to broaden out the potential supply of CO's, so we want to give them a starting point rather than requiring them to craft missions from scratch. We want to decrease how much players' enjoyment of a scenario hinges on strategies made from scratch by two CO's. We want to decrease the probability that players fly around for hours with no action or get only missions that are totally historically unrealistic. (Note, flying around without action is not the fault of CO's -- when there is no structure, a CO has no way of knowing if a particular asset will or won't be attacked.)
Basically, we want to give the general players a higher probability that they will be flying missions that have the feel of the history of the battle and that they see action. From these players' point of view, it doesn't matter whether or not a scenario is a simulation for the CO of him being the whole HQ or is getting orders from HQ.
These aren't re-enactments stipulating who wins and every aspect that goes on. A side will still have plenty to decide and plenty hinging on their execution and tactics. Consider Rangoon and Der Grosse Schlag. People enjoyed those scenarios, didn't at all complain about there being too much specification, and those are more determined than Philippine Phandango. In Rangoon, for example, the target is specified, and the mission is exactly known every frame. The challenge is in the execution, details of how the bombers go to Rangoon, details on how escort, screens, sweeps, scouts, etc. are done. Some people might not like Rangoon, but a lot of people do like it. There is no absolute right or wrong, but a matter of preference.
If we picked to run a scenario that is absolutely perfect from any particular point of view, there would also be a group of people who hate it and get all worked up about it. That can't be avoided, but what we can do is to try different things and see how it goes, to see if aspects that the great majority of players don't like can be reduced.
(By the way, for those of you who want totally open fights, with no restrictions at all, no mission requirements, no player-enforced rules, nothing but a simple scoring system and historically themed assets to deploy, anything goes, please try out "This Day in WWII". Be a CO for that -- you can deploy whatever strategy and tactics you want.)
