Agh Gents,
You are all talking about the same command and control issues that will NEVER be resolved to anyones liking for the following reasons :
1. Each command had a commander whos decisions were independant.
2. The issue of time and space in relation to enemy being seen and messages being passed cannot be realistically replicated in a game system that does not have a seperate commander for each independant formation/unit and that does not have a realistic fog of war with the attendant delay in orders and information being passed.
3. The HPS AI system is not perfect by any stretch and AI will always be below a humans ability.
4. Fate and chance have no real impact with this system
However the HPS system gives the commanders a level playing field with time and space being realistic for the systems parameters. Both commanders have the same opportunities and capabilities with the system. Its the closest you will get to simulating the warfare. The micro management is just what you have to live with.
I for one like being the brain for everyone on the field

Its your best plan with your best execution and if your beaten (when the start was even) then thats life

but if your plan and execution succeed then lifes good

. If you were the underdog and won then lifes great
One of the best Napoleonic Rules sets I've ever played were Corps d'Armee (used for years in NZ miniatures national competitions). One of the best rules sets for chance and fate (as well as speed of play) were Gamesworkshop's WARMASTER rules. I've dabbled in combining the two and have had good results. Not had the time or focus to sit and re-write a system combining the two but have the basics there.
To much grumbling and not enough fighting!