^ I've seen your review before and don't entirely agree with it. I've found pathfinding to be fine based on order types I used, and you shouldn't be microing squads anyways.
IMO pathfinding is not fine, and if you keep units in platoon formations then individual vehicles will usually take up AWFUL positions. For example, if I order a tank platoon to take up positions along a treeline, inevitably, one vehicle will take a position INSIDE the treeline with no LOS, and the only solution is to break the platoon apart and manually position vehicles (micromanage + induce insane command delay)
Related to a MECH infantry platoons - Squads need to stay close by their vehicles to maintain command radius. That's not how MECH infantry fight in real life.
This game is so unrealistic that is laughable.
But
even if you disregarded the pathfinding issues, then the game still has unbelievable flaws-
Most notably the pointless objectives that hold no tactical value and an enemy AI that just bunches up around objectives and applies no coherent tactics.
"But there's a battle generator where you can set your own Objectives"
Yes, and the AI will still just bunch up around defense objectives or rush into a meeting engagement with zero tactics.
I especially love the random infantry squads that I see laying in open fields.
Because of your thoughts, I played through some generated scenarios again. Paying particular attention to your points.
I had a great time...and IMHO the game is not 'unbelievably flawed.'
Both scenarios I played were at the reinforced company level. One was a US assault against the Soviets in a heavily wooded area of Fulda, the other a US defense against the Soviets in a relatively open valley at NTC.
When I get time over the next week or so, I'll put together some AARs.
Maybe I am just undiscerning, but for an AI playing in a dynamically generated scenario, the AI was OK IMHO. Robo Ivan even had some surprises for me. On defense, I did not see it clump around the objectives (but that may have had something to do with the way I set the scenario up). In one case the defending AI took up good positions covering an open area I had to cross....I left some burning M-60s and M113s there as a result... It used artillery and air strikes well. Once I had taken the objectives, it counter-attacked. Was the AI coordinating its efforts well? No. Did it have a well thought out defense plan? No. But I still had a good time, and the AI gave me some challenges.
I don't think "pathfinding" is an issue. But the AI deployment of units certainly is. Yes, if you move a tank platoon, the AI will inevitably screw up placing one or more of the tanks. So you do need to guide them somewhat. The game allows you to adjust these placements manually as you said, but you are right, it is more work. But I am OK with some manual work at the level I usually play the game (battalion and below). Of course, If I was playing a game at the regiment level, all of that fiddling would make the game a bit of a monster.
Does the AI have problems, sure. But none of these rise to the level where I can't play the game or where it affects the "fun" factor.
I am also now curious to play some of the hand built scenarios...just to see if there are any differences.
Don't get me wrong, the game is not everything I want (multiplayer support would be very nice for example). But for anyone who got the game on sale for $25, I think the game is an incredible bargain.
