RMM

It's a shame we don't have horses in the game. Quite a few armies were still using them-Cavalry Divisions especially-in reconnaissance. Germany had at least one Cavalry Division at the start of the war and it was still around during Operation Barbarossa I think. Not sure how its Aufklarung might've looked or if it even had one. 

Recon scenarios work well in campaigns.  A mission could consist of reconning a map so you know where the defenses are.  Next mission would be an attack on the same map.  IIRC the CMSF2 "British Campaign" has such a recon mission.

OK, though that's a gamified workaround - something you wouldn't do in real life.  I'd like to see an actual in-game solution at some point.

Ah, but that's not the problem - I'm quite sparse on waypoints actually.  The problem is that some gaps that look passable aren't, unless some specific line segment is placed perfectly.  Look at the OP's description of the problem - that's what many of us experience.
This is an issue where the 'hitbox' - the volume representing the vehicle - collides with the hitbox of obstacles on the map, such as trees, buildings, walls etc.  This collision test only happens during the processing of the turn, not when the player creates the path (of infinitesimally thin vectors).  I've suggested that the same processing could be done for a single segment, on demand, before the end-turn button is pressed.  No new AI would be needed.

You would click at the beginning and at the end. Fast would select the fastest route slow the route which gives the most cover. To travel on roads is mandatory in real life. You leave tracks behind in cross country. For the enemy air force to follow your trail. I lay ambushes on the approach routes not necessary on roads themselves. To lose an AC on a mine is the risk to take.  

It's worse than that  - I did read your post yet the information didn't go in!  Now I even remember reading it in the manual, but I think my brain suffers from ROM-syndrome sometimes.  To say fair I maybe forgot it as it's a feature I seldom find a use for - more commonly I have to be careful timing the mount-up before departure.

there are a lot of things...but really...what i want is that the concept of OPERATION of the old CM came back, or at least carry the damage and some wrecks to replay the scenario simulating a breakthrough/defensive battle on a campaing...
I really want to get rid of the feeling of "thats all, you loose, move to attack in another place, even if you have just commit your recon element and got all your forces ready for a breakthrougth and you got the enemy almost broken" when attacking or "great you win, lets defend another position, cause, you know, the enemy will never attack again here, even if you had barely hold the line" when defending....and when it comes to  last year of ww2, it makes me crazy... 
 

Hey it works, thanks!  I suspect like most people, I'd previously only dismounted by choosing a waypoint.

To have a selection in the Options that could turn that feature off; ie. with the feature turned off, only one unit will ever receive an order, but being an option would allow those who do use that feature to retain it as they wish.

And I do appreciate it that

Yes, clearly there are some situations where it is not clear. I would prefer those questionable gap issues be fixed by them properly matching between if it looks big enough for a vehicle it is big enough for a vehicle.

Shouldn't the quality team or creator of the scenario / map have "pathfinding" on the checklist before release??  I don't think the consumer should have to test.  

A lot of that is basically available in the HUNT command. Again, we're playing a game that is heavily focused around facilitating set-piece battles and sieges. The CM games can do maneuver well enough, but the designers don't seem to have a very good of picture of the sort of "day to day" routines military forces follow that don't match up to the "pitched battle for hill 235" picture they usually hold. 
German Armored Recon had a saying that went like "see much and be seen little". The motto was an overall abstraction of their training that emphasized avoidance all but the most helpless of enemies and even more importantly, that it was preferable to avoid danger entirely than to "fight it out" against enemy forces. You don't really know how strong the enemy force is, and fighting will be a distraction from the Panzer Aufklarung's job which was to find safe avenues for the rest of the division and potentially save the formation too if it turned out they were walking into a trap. That may sound like what all recon does, but tbh there's quite a bit more nuance in each Army's approach to battlefield intelligence gathering than we often picture and a given designer's inability to distinguish between kinds of recon that could be either "searching" and "screening" or something else kinda just highlight's my point about how much myopia there is about this lol. 
I think sources are sort of hard to parse too because while there's plenty of guys who wrote books on their experiences in recon or armored recon the overall context of what they were doing and what they were up to exactly is hard to place without some "high level" understanding of the local situation and the routines. Then of course there was a lot of overlap with main bodies and such like the infantry who were expected to be both searching and screening everywhere they went but what exactly that involved between Rifle Infantry and dedicated Recce Troop could be substantially different. 

Part of the problem is that there is no RECON order in which a team acts realistically as a recon element.  The player has to guess and issue waypoints and orders manually as best he can.  
A Recon vehicle should be able to move FAST while jinking violently to make a hard target.  If recon inf spots or even hears something, it should "know" to take cover and observe.  If shot shot at it should HIDE and then crawl back to safe cover.  

I hate doing that - it's one thing to attack aggressively, but recon by suicide is so fake...
Another thing ACs are great for is pursuit - once you break the MLR and you want to hasten the enemy's surrender, light armour are fabulous at shooting down fleeing enemy :D

CM scenarios are usually a bit overpopulated to execute proper recce missions as designed unfortunately. It can be done, but the scenario designers don't usually seem to have a good picture of how recon works and what it's doing. So the player always gets asked to do insanely dangerous stuff like close probes and infiltration. Recon typically tried to avoid fighting as much possible except against targets they could obviously trounce, think a 232 vs a pair of guys in a fox hole. 
If you try to use armored cars like tanks you will be very disappointed. If you try to use them like a Kubelwagon but with armor and a 20mm gun you will turn up better results. The Americans and Germans had some of the most heavily armed and armored recon of any of the Allied/Axis armies-a fact which tended to compel German Generals to use and expend them as armored infantry which also wasted such a valuable asset. American commanders seem to have granted their armored recon a ton of latitude and independence-old cavalry traditions probably-and so they tended to end up surviving more often but also tended to end up driving out into the middle of nowhere, negatively impacting their HQ's situational awareness. These are big reasons why the Russians gave battlefield commanders just about none of it for their own use and withheld armored recon squadrons at higher levels. They didn't have many of them-so they had to be used somewhat more carefully than a Division commander might be inclined to. 
 

What about checking one chosen leg (through a gap) by incrementally stepping through that internal "reality at the moment" path?  If the game can do it at run time, why can't it do so on a limited scale at "verify" time?
I get that it can't do it in the same way as the terrain cursor, as that simply looks up the value of the terrain map at one point.  Lookup vs calculation.

@RMM the important thing is that as many people as possible should enjoy the game. If you like Camera 3 or 4 who am I to say you shouldn't? I feel I am a little bit of a cheat when I disable trees and view it from a bird's eye view. Oops there must be a bunker foxhole or trench. Happy gaming

I don't agree with some of your other ideas, because I don't want to have to micromanage units, but this suggestion I like.
Actually, the Team have said they won't be implementing map damage across battles, nor the ability to import troops or maps (with damage) from a previous battle to a new one, as it would represent a kind of Campaign feature, and the game has a Campaign feature.
...but the Team also said they'd never do CM Fulda Gap, so who knows.... 😛

- In as much as campaigns continue play on the same map (eg. Bridge Too Close), the map should retain the wrecks and changes to terrain (eg. rubbled buildings and blasted hedgerows) created in the previous battles.

There does still exist the issue that some gaps seem to allow a vehicle to pass (the pathing tool shows the gap is driveable) but the vehicle can't do it and turns around to go another way.  

Then we get people who don't like this they like to suppress first. Till about 40 years ago I played social cricket. A grenade is a little like a cricket-ball. To throw it back to the wicket keeper 50 yards by a very good player, to hit the stumps which would be akin to throw a grenade through a window you do very well at 25mtrs. I would say cut the distances in half for this game and it is about what the designers came up with. In the US they play baseball, but they have a similar idea. Joking aside throwing grenades is a little stressful first time at the range compare it dealing with an enemy who has the same idea. Roll of the dice is I am afraid the best anybody can come up with. 

If you play on WeGo. That the game pauses if there is an emergency eg a unit starts to flicker. You will have access to one of these emergency buttons. I feel it would make the game more realistic.

At the very least there could be a 'verify' utility after a path has been plotted, alerting the player to anything that ends up different from intended.  If this is a specific command then it won't affect the performance at path issuing time.

Yep we'd definitely want that result facilitated, it's just establishing the best way to do it.  What would happen IRL if a unit encountered an enemy?  Why would they continue to the intended destination?  I reckon that would only happen if the encounter was worth ignoring, i.e. it's not a high threat.  In the game that reaction could potentially be configured, so it would just continue as intended with a new red icon now visible.  But a configurable reaction could also take into account a non-ignorable contact, similarly reflecting a real-life response of fight or flight.