I read your post and would like to respond on some things. First of all I understand where your coming from from a mission perspective. Making mIssions in DCS can be tedious because in most cases you have to define the finest point of the mission and include all the ground elements in your design. BMS takes care of most of that with the engine. But from a strategic standpoint there is plenty of opportunity. For instance
1. In BMS you are playing in a pre-populated world where the only things that really change are the movement of ground forces. Strategic control centers are fixed and dont move. The border and its SAM systems are all fixed and are there in every game etc. etc.
This could be simulated in DCS if someone decided to create a master template mission and populated the Georgian theater. For instance Im working on such a template in that respect right now. Pre-populated border check points, missile emplacements static ground units can all be laid down and reused over and over again just as it is in BMS (Korea for instance)
2. BMS presents (in Korea) a vast area much bigger than how most mission makers utilize DCS. If you use your imagination, and you extend into the Black Sea and Russia you could also simulate strategic missions in a much tougher environments that can be done in BMS. Including advanced surface to air threats.
3. Combined Arms is going to offer an element that cant be found in BMS and that is the "Smart" ground unit. Once humans start getting involved in the movement of ground forces the strategic element will be huge. At this time Im attempting to prep a mission to simulate the Russo-Georgian war in 2008 which include relatively accurate Table of Organization for both Russian and Georgian ground forces. Can you do this in BMS? Dont know. When DCS CA comes out it will be ready for a team to command the elements of Russian Marines and the 20th Motorised Rifle Division that fought in Abkhazia, There are no waypoints in the mission for any unit. It will be up to the commanders to figure that out on the fly. The scenarios are now limitless with human controlled ground forces and the Air Force now takes on its true role of supporting the ground objectives. In BMS you bomb targets in hope that the AI is smart enough to react to the situation you create.
4. When I have played BMS most of the time is in TE missions vs playing in the campaign. Even when playing the campaign most of the time spent in a 4 hour period was playing maybe 2 to three missions. In this short time the campaign engine rarely had enough time to make a difference in winning the "War". So you end up playing a series of short engagements that is no different than what you do in DCS.
5. DCS has a mission generator that has the same impact as TE missions with more un-predictability. It relieves the issue of having to populate ground targets as well as plan your mission.
Anyways these are some of my thoughts. Both games have their strengths and weaknesses. No doubt no one in the near future will be able to rival Falcons campaign engine. It took them years to develop that (I know I was there) so its doubtful that anyone has the resources to spend on something like this based on the limited size of the flight sim community. I do agree with you in that DCS has lost some focus (in particular why a P-51. Cool aircraft but wrong environment). But I think their intentions are good and will serve a broader theater as these elements come into play. And again the big question mark with DCS is can they create the electronic Environment (radar, RWR, etc) that BMS has done. Not sure how that will play out and hope that we dont end up with a series of FSX aircraft embedded into the DCS environment. The radars in BMS are derived from years of refinement and dedication. But with that said personally I cant wait to do Carrier Ops in the Black Sea to take out S-300 sites deep inside Russia with 8 other people all flying off the Carrier.