RMM

Yes, I'm sticking with the game; it's the best I've ever found. I fact, I just purchased FB, but still, seriously ('xcuse the language)...WTF!?
I very carefully and deliberately plotted a path for this jeep and towed ATG round the back of the building, using the wall as cover, and mindful that it was, potentially a narrow gap, even though it appeared to be a 'hex' size in width. I hovered the mouse over the area to see if there would be any point at which it would say "No can do." Never said a word. Then, as you can see, it drives up to the gap and then turns away. It ended up driving right into the open crossroads...you probably don't need to guess too hard what the inevitable outcome was 😠 !
Is it really not possible for the game to do a better (proper?) job of telling us that a plotted path isn't workable?
On a more calm note - suggestions how this should/could have been done? I presume dismounting the ATG behind the building and having them push it through the gap, but how do we know that would not have been a problem? Quite sure I'm not the first to come across this. In fact, I already posted about a similar issue, but what remedies have folks found in such situations?

Indeed so, but usually you plan your dismounts to leap off at the end of the journey and go to a nearby advantageous position.  If the vehicle is halted some way before that then the dismounts have a long walk, quite likely over dangerous ground.
Whereas if you prepared them to react to an early halt, they could move to some contingency cover position or maybe just hit the dirt and fight back, rather than wander nicely in front of the enemies' gunsights to their original destination.

Here ya go:
OK, pause and edit might be made to be quite easy, but it would break up the whole idea of a commander biting his nails during that WEGO minute where he's just an observer.  Plus, the devs would have to develop such an edit method, which I'd guess isn't trivial.
The idea of WEGO is to break up the battle into useful chunks to balance commanding and action playing out, to best simulate real life combat; mostly that works well. This is just one of those situations where it results in unrealistic behaviour - temporary paralysis when a reaction would happen IRL - so it would be good to come up with solutions that still fit within that WEGO time chunk approach.

Very good idea V!

Quite right 😁!  I would say whoever designed the things should be vigorously whipped with one for not making them work both ways.  Think of the thousands of hours and counting they've wasted because of it.

Just like putting USB cords in. Never works the first time. You flip it and it still doesn't work. You flip it back and badaboom, badabing, it goes right in.

Agreed.  I suppose I think of hunt as 'move but keep your eyes peeled and be careful'.  Adding sensible reactions would surely improve the behaviour of encounters during any type of move, but if it's during a hunt the unit should be in a better position to carry out its consequent actions as it's not being caught by surprise.  All sorts of modifiers could apply.

Agreed. At the end of the day, one can but make requests and suggestions in the hopes that some may take hold.

The more I think about it, I reckon it should be a new posture rather than a command, though it would have response-based commands/instructions associated with it.
An example: say we decide on 3 threat levels for any one unit - low, med & high.  A scout unit is hunting along a track, the last waypoint (and hence current leg) has posture defined as "Ignore low threat", "Stop and fight med threat", "Relocate from high threat".  A relocate path/destination has been set, associated with that waypoint.
So, it first spots an enemy scout unit some way off-  low threat, so carries on.  Next it spots an infantry unit a bit closer - that's a medium threat so he stops moving and starts shooting.  Then a tank appears, triggering the scout to relocate along that predefined path.
Another example: an ATGM team is stationary at a location.  It has posture "Ignore low threat", "Relocate on med threat", "Fire and relocate on high threat".  It sees enemy scouts, so ignores.  It then sees an enemy tank appear within range, so it fires an ATGM and immediately relocates along its predefined path.
If such threat levels can be established then one of several responses could be pre-assigned to each of them, associated with a waypoint or current location.  Hence it wouldn't be limited to any one type of movement, rather like how arcs are used at the moment.  Hunting would just become a 'careful' movement with quicker awareness/response to threats than other types.
 
It'll be a little more complex with respect to primary weapon & target types, in that an ATGM team would only shoot-n-scoot on armour, whereas it may run away from approaching infantry without firing.
 

A 'react' command should be configurable, so if a Hunting team spot something that's not an immediate threat they could just continue.  It's only if a 'withdraw' reaction is triggered that they'd relocate, presumably because they encountered a significant threat.  The trick will be how to add such configurability to decide that reaction.
I suspect that once a withdrawal has occurred, it's less likely that the player would want to continue the original route & postures.  In which case it wouldn't be worth the devs' efforts to implement preserving that, especially if they could be working on something else we value more.
 

A new command is a good idea.  I would like the ability to order a unit to move (at whatever speed one desires) but then if fired upon to reverse backwards at the fastest speed possible.  The German 8 wheel Rad vehicles were designed to do that with a 2nd (rear-facing) driver and the same gears forward or reverse.
Another version of that would be the option to order RECON MOVEMENT where the vehicle moves FAST and can ZIG ZAG at high speed - immediately changing course like inf does now - ideally skidding as it corners. IIRC that is what recon vehicles practiced doing in order to be harder to hit.  Saw a video of a recon Bren Carrier driven that way.

The simplest solution would be a binary option based on some sort of qualifier: either stand and fight (like at present) or retreat to a predefined place, executing a move command.  Such a reaction shouldn't necessarily be limited to scouts though, as equally any other unit without AT weapons may wish to retreat, so we're really just looking at a more developed reaction to a Hunt encounter.
What could complicate that is a 'glass cannon' nature where a unit may indeed be able to combat a tank - if it gets in the first shot - but lacks defence so thereafter would withdraw quickly.  Such a situation would be similar to the 'shoot-and-scoot' idea of taking a shot and then relocating, the only difference being that isn't the result of a Hunt command.
Also, this reaction shouldn't necessarily be limited to tanks, e.g. a walking scout team encounters a larger infantry force so withdrawal is the best response.  It sounds like we need a configurable threat response based on several factors, activated during a Hunt or simply being stationary.
Which then implies that a 'React' instruction may be the solution, requiring choice of a few parameters, which may be triggered whatever the unit is doing.  If the instruction conditions are set up then a Hunting unit could, say, stand and fight, take a single shot then relocate, or relocate (flee) immediately.  A stationary unit could do similar, e.g. an ATGM team would take the shot and then relocate.
As Hunt reaction and Shoot-and-Scoot both seem to be sought after, this would kill two birds with one stone.

I love recon and I do a lot of it, not slowly, but damned slowly, but from now on I will never think of my pixelsnoopers as anything but Peepers.
Love that.  😆

Great find. Nasty pic. 

Some people can imagine my chagrin when we were stuck doing route recce in G-wagens whilst on exercise (in another life, it seems at this point), and we were watching Coyotes prance about. We thought the grass was greener. Then I got familiarized and chance to crew with some active guys after a few summer rotations. We heard the MILEs go off a lot. When you're expected to do less sneaking and peeping and more fighting for information, you're going to get shot. A lot.

It's a fine balance. Less info, more survivability, or kicking over the hornet's nest. God forbid if you're a peeper and you get caught, though. I imagine its why most recce battalions tried to ride the fine line between the two. Lots of light skins, under armed cars, etc coupled with squadrons of heavier fighting vehicles or, in the case of the Commonwealth forces, straight on assault companies of motor infantry. 
Recon is a lot more nuanced than drive forward until someone gets pissed at you, and its an operation that never stops even once you've gained contact. Wish more people understood this.

Recon in light vehicles was risky in RL as it is in the game 
 

Yep, agreed. But you can artificially slow down your vehicle by adding in some short 5-second pauses along the way.

Combined arms, experiment with artillery light + large area fire. Then send in your ACs to do their recon in that area. I did it in modern warfare, but it seems to work. 

The problem is that unlike Patton's Recon guys, our pixeltruppen don't know what to do if they get shot at.  If they are on HUNT, they immediately stop and make lovely targets.  Speed is their only weapon and safety.  In the open desert of CMSF it's good to run em FAST across the enemy front.  It's hard to hit a fast-moving vehicle.
In WW2, as mentioned above, run em FAST down a road to a waypoint and have em REVERSE immediately.  After i dunno how many hurs of playing and experimenting it's the best way to locate an enemy and have the recon vehicle stay alive.  Nonetheless, they are always in significant danger of getting hit or KIA.

Oh yeh, I've read plenty of such accounts. Again, I was referring to the idea of the entire crew dismounting. Yes, it was common for tank commanders, assuming a significant enough distance from any known threat and a large vista to overlook to get out. Granted

This is a good report on recon through the ages.  Its lengthy, but worth the read if hung up on "realistic" recon operations.  Osprey also has a couple good books dedicated to recon tactics in WW2.
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/scouts_out.pdf
I tried to attach it as a PDF, but NFC says it only allows 22k attachments.
The type of recon assets most scenarios include wouldn't normally be in a full on battle in WW2.  CM-level The recon assets are more for recon vs recon, recon vs screen, or scenarios where spotting a unit gives you points.  That's if recon assets are used properly.  But true recon assets were rarely used that way in WW2.  They were used as screen or flank protection.  Many times used as reserves.

I don't know about the modern games, but I'm sure they are very different. I'm only playing WW2. Probably should have mentioned that.

Well vehicle commanders would often dismount to check ahead (terrain recce). Just you can't dismount the commander themself in CM, so the whole crew has to come along. That in itself is risky.
I'm not advocating them going all ninja black ops and sneaky pete, but just a wee crawl to cover to check the next terrain bound. Keep me close to their ride so you can still use the radio. Comms and information sharing are key to good recce.
Check out @MOS:96B2P excellent work in this regard. The link to the relevant thread is in his signature.

That is easy to say. But with the LoS these games have an enemy soldier without binocula can sometimes (or too often) easily see through a forest and find the troops or vehicle one want to hide behind a forest or woods.
The expression "I can't see the forest because of all the trees standing in the way" can't always be used in a CM-battle.

I have enjoyed using JSGME a few years back. It seemed to take a small bit of work to set it up but then it was very useful to pick and choose what you wanted for even a quick battle "global in game appearance" I guess you'd call it. As opposed to modtagged mods which require the scenario to have the modtag to allow "scenario with proper modtags only appearance". Does that make sense? SOmehow I jumped off the tracks of using it and never went back...
You want your hooker in leather with whips and chains? JSGME bing
You want her in the Japanese schoolgirl outfit? JSGME bing bing
Dressed as Nancy Pelosi with the gavel? JSGME bing bing bing
@RMM Thanks, I am now motivated to set it back up. I have a bunch of CMRT mods and more on the way that SCREAM OUT to have JSGME.

I noticed while playing Boys against Men scenario in CMBN that an AI machine gunner abandoned their HMG and remanned it a few turns later. Don't know if we can do that though. Thankfully I figured (by watching the AI) that you can remount a new gunner in halftracks after the original is capped. I did that with a scout team from a nearby squad. Remount or bail a good maxim SSquarhead. Thanks.