My solution was instituted after the creation of this thread. The point was made to me that it's far easier to catch these issues before they go live as the missions can be altered before players start working on them. This is correct, and I'm stepping up to do what I can to make that easier solution happen.
The natural follow-up response is: "Well, why wasn't this screened already?" It was, but as new employees enter the company and use different combat mission metrics when they're creating content the newer entries can slip through as each individual is typically responsible for their own work. Further, having a non-Co-Op mission chain is ok in a similar way that having an Event-only mission chain is ok. Sometimes missions are made to support specific areas or aspects of the game. My specific goal with doing combat mission reviews is to try to catch combat missions which are more general/generic in nature and make sure that they reach the largest audience because that is best in line with the intended goal. My job is not to override the intent of the creator, but I am trying to add an extra check.
It is wrong to make this sweeping generalization. You are treating side-missions and optional content as though it is the Primary Event/Content of an Update.
Our internal work-style is to empower employees to do and make cool stuff for our players. Side missions for a few camos in relation to a holiday or a patch in relation to an event are supplemental content that someone thought would be fun/cool. If the person creating something fun thought of using it as a challenge mission that involved Achievements that is ok, because it's someone trying to do something cool. However, because Co-Op wouldn't be able to take part, it's something that can be caught and alternative challenges can be suggested to give a similar level of engagement while being open to all.
Again, it's not correct to assume this is some form of management decision or intentional oversight. We are people that go to work and try to come up with cool stuff for folks to have fun with. Reading bad intent because the base idea didn't include all possibilities is giving too much weight to something that slipped through.
I'm not personally privy to long-term consideration and intended play for Co-Op, but I learned a lot when interacting with some phone app games like Azur Lane. They have a very short and repeatable combat loop that can be very easy to enjoy and slide into. The loops can be challenging at times when pushing new content but will quickly become easily achievable and often move to an auto-play function that allows the 3-5 minute Start -> Combat -> Reward loop.
Current Co-Op has poor bot accuracy, but it does work enough to result in player losses. Torpedoes, ASW Strikes, Dutch Airstrikes, AI Carriers, and Submarine Pings are very accurate and represent real threats that should be considered. The majority of the play experience isn't high threat, but there are times where the is real danger that requires active play in order to keep playing until the end of the match. When considered in that light, there is a similar Start -> Setup -> Combat -> Reward loop that strikes right around the 5 minute mark.
While a Hard-Mode of Co-Op may very well be enjoyed, we have Defense of Naval Station Newport which is effectively a longer duration horde mode with accurate bots. The new Operations will allow Tier 6-8 ships to be used which greatly increases experience variety. Operations already provide a more intense PvE experience so that must be weighed on if Co-Op needs to be a more intense experience than it already is when other options are available.
I appreciate the compliment, but there is no way in Hell that two vocal people singlehandedly move a company of hundreds of people working toward a common goal. This is a team effort that is the result of efforts which started before I was hired. The baton has been passed from hand to hand as we keeping moving to a better tomorrow, so the best we can do is try our best to keep it moving in the right direction. Trying to act as though the rest of the company is somehow ill-intentioned towards PvE is wrong.