This kind of illustrates the point I've been making. Lets assume for the sake of this discussion that what you write above really is an accurate description of the Trip character. Connor Trinneer took this bare bones, simple character and using his natural charisma and other acting skills turned Trip into THE most popular and respected character on the show.
Scott, working with Archer, a character who by your assessment, is much more complex, succeeded in making him into one of the least respected and least liked Trek captain characters in all of Trek.
Unlike Trinneer (and Billinglea), who was handed a pile of sticks and used them to build a mansion, Scott was handed a similar pile of sticks and built a "stick" figure home which lacked depth and any symblance of mystery, or complexity.
Considering your description of Trip and what Trinneer did with the character, maybe Connor should have played Archer.
I think it's the responsibility of the writers to write for the actors they have. They knew what they had, and Scott in his element is very good I think.
Like I said in my post earlier, Scott doesn't play mad or angry very well. So I think if you want them to excel you write to their strengths.