nikolai

I don't know... It sounds as if we play different games... In the CM that I played, group movement orders just do an affine transformation. That is, every unit is moved by exactly the same distance to exactly the same direction. No intelligence involved. No attempt to optimize placement of individual units to find better firing position or better cover.

In my opinion, tactical AI means *making decisions*. That is, finding a reasonable trade-off between multiple options given the current uncertain information about the enemy. You know, finding the shortest path is not a tactical AI, but finding the safest path would be. Running away after being broken is not a decision/trade-off, as well as dying after being shot is not a decision. A tactical decision would be to decide whether a unit should engage an enemy or not based on chances to kill the enemy versus the risk of being spotted and shattered by return fire. As of now, so called TacAI is not even able to choose an appropriate weapon for the target, it just fires everything that has even the slightest chance to damage the target. Sure, the decisions needed at CM scale are different from the decisions at CO2 scale. However, notice how many tweaks are there in CO2. That's because there is a tactical AI and it needs your input to adjust various trade-offs to your high-level plan. I think that if BF ever decides to add a tactical AI to the game, it should start with adding Aggressiveness and Rate of Fire parameters for units. The units would use those parameters to decide whether to engage the enemy or not, and which weapon to use.

Right. Different games, different systems. That's fine. I just don't want to pretend there is a tactical AI, while in fact it is absent by design.

You sound as if there is a tactical AI in the game. TacAI is a misnomer. The existing unit "AI" doesn't take tactical situation into account at all. You cannot ask it to find the safest path, you cannot ask it to make an ambush, you cannot ask it to fire-and-retreat (would be helpful for ambushes, snipers or for fire-and-forget missiles in CMBS). Just compare it, for example, to true tactical AI in Command Ops 2 and you will see what tactical AI should look like. I play CM with an assumption that there is no friendly tactical AI and I have to micromanage units giving them the very basic orders: go this way with normal speed, don't forget to deploy weapon, fire into this wall for 30 seconds. You're trying to impute to TacAI decisions that it was never designed to make.

Thank you!

Thanks! So, it indeed looks like a bug with cursor hovering. Any ideas how to best inform developers about it?

It's a lame excuse. Every time pixel soldiers do some nonsense, someone says that it's a feature, a clever tactical AI. But every time someone asks for Ambush command or ability to mount/dismount at the interim waypoint, the answer is that it's too much for the AI.

Sure. It's "A Muddy Affair" battle. There is a stream on the left-hand side. Most of it cannot be crossed (according to cursor-hovering), but there is a pretty big segment of the stream that appears fordable. Feel free to try it and please share your results.

I have just tried changing the movement type to Fast or Quick. It didn't help. The tank still refuses to cross the stream and tries to go around it. How can it be not a bug? I mean, why do you think it is a feature?

Ok. Based on your replies, I presume that this behavior looks like a bug. Does anyone know how I could report a bug?

No. I have checked it multiple times. There is no impassable tiles in this location. The nearest impassable tile is pretty far from this path, under the tree. Here's the video: https://streamable.com/bmqixg (sorry for capturing video with the phone, for some reason OBS doesn't capture cursor in CM).

Thanks for your replies! Yes, I am aware of the cursor-hovering method. However, in this case I cannot see any impassable tiles in this part of the map. Actually, my original screenshot was supposed to show that all the tiles in the path are kind of considered passable (you cannot put a waypoint into an impassable tile, can you?). Still, the tank refuses to cross the stream and decides to drive around the stream (the stream ends on the other side of the map, deep into the enemy position). I wonder if it could be somehow related to muddy ground conditions. I wonder if some tiles could have turned impassable because of it, while cursor-hovering method keeps assuming dry ground conditions.

It is so frustrating when instead of straight-line path your tanks take detour through enemy positions and get busted... Is there a way to know in advance whether a tank will be able to cross a stream or it will be forced to drive around?

Thanks @c3k. That should work fine in most cases.

No. That's not what I'm talking about. Using Javelin against an APC is fine if APC is pretty far, because there's a chance that the team will die before they have an opportunity to use it against a tank. Though, if APC is close, I'd like TacAI to try and use AT4 first. What I'm talking about is pretty different. In this case TacAI decides to use Javelin (Javelin operator is aiming), but at the same time it fires AT4 rockets and reveals the team. Firing AT4 as soon as possible would make sense if the team were spotted and fired at. But when the team is well concealed, it's just a pointless suicide.