silly, a) there is no such thing as *over* analysing, in diplomacy and b) analysing is half the fun. There is nothing more fun than the board actually playing out exactly as you engineered it
or as it has been said:
"Akroma, what is best in diplomacy?"
"To crush your enemy, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their home centers"
and yeah, giving orders is always a must, even if they would seem obvious
I once played an italy, with the following orders in spring: venice - trieste, rome - venice and naples - ionian
an obvious attack on austria, right?
austria bounced in galicia with russiam move to albania and serbia, then next turn, attacked my army in trieste, dislodging it, and moves his arms in serbia to budapest -one would think it would be obvious that I would retreat it into serbia, or not?
nope, disbanded it, and alongside me grabbing tunis, suddenly had two units to build - a fleet in naples and a fleet in rome. suddenly I had 3 fleets, all aimed at france, with my army in venice heading to piedmont. France was flabberghasted and already deep at war with england. austria would have of course wanted retaliation, but with russia and turkey in no obvious conflict, austria simply did not have the option to actually turn around and attack me, not without losing ground to russia and turkey(or at least that#s what i convinced him off), so my promises that I would send some fleets against turkey as soon as I made some more gains left me save, for a bit. marsailles, spain and portugal were soon mine, and the game ended in a draw with england
obvious is not something that a GM should base orders on. there is a non-zero chance that austria might have made plans that would involve delaying a build, to later on have different options