I couldn't disagree more. The concept of tanking doesn't suggest the AI will ignore everyone but the tank. The tank should be somewhat capable of drawing attention, however, and that just is not true in this game.
I disagree that this should be possible except by actually being a greater threat than other opponents the AI is fighting on the battlefield.
(It actually
is possible in the game right now via the stench talent, but I hope we can all agree that the stench talent, however useful, is pretty silly. If nothing else, then when we start considering just which sort of stench it is that is so powerful it affects not only all living and undead creatures, but also creatures without a sense of smell.)
The AI will hang back and attack the ranged characters from afar. Drop smokescreen - well, most of the time it bugs out and they continue to fire regardless. When smokescreen does work, the AI just walks through it until it can continue attacking the ranged characters. You can place fire or ooze in the way to prevent them from marching through it, but short of smokescreen and surrounding them in fire to keep them blind and unable to move, they will circumvent every environment you place to get at your ranged characters.
So will you. YOU are not going to NOT make use of your ranged characters sensibly just because of hazards - you are going to do your best to circumvent anything that hinders you, at least if you are a competent player. It may cost you AP and result in fewer shots, but you will do it.
That the AI does the same is great.
That smokescreen bugs out frequently is a cause for fixing whatever causes it to bug out.
Saying that it's insane for the AI to attack the target that's closest to them, doing the most damage to them, and giving them hell in close quarters is, well... insane in itself.
It depends entirely on the tactical circumstances whether it is a good choice or not, and, as such, sanity should be judged on the individual example, not generalized.
As one extreme example, just about everybody playing any tactical game, ever, would agree that attacking or otherwise putting out of commission a strong healer capable of keeping somebody nasty in melee alive has a higher priority that staying in melee with that nasty somebody in an attempt to kill him off first, while the healer keeps healing him. Continuing trying to kill somebody made effectively immortal through healing just because he's closest and doing most damage to them would be - if not a sign of insanity - then at least extremely poor gameplay.
As a less extreme example, if you were fighting, say, two tough guys in melee that do a lot of damage and individually do more damage than anybody else on the field, as well as one guy that is ranged, does slightly less damage than the tough guys, can control much of the battlefield and inflict status effects including CC by using special arrows, and is much less tough than either of them, and one guy that is ranged, can heal moderately, does less damage than either the tough guys or the ranged damagedealer, and has CC spells that your party is vulnerable do... Well, who do you attack in that situation? Do you consider it insane to attack anybody but the two tough guys, that are very definitely in your face and giving you hell?
Or let's say you are fighting a boss and three minibosses, the boss being closest to your party, doing the most damage to your party, and giving them hell in close quarters is, while the three minibosses start at range and either have to move in to melee or fight at range... Are you insane if you don't concentrate on the boss until he's dead, accepting the attacks of the minibosses until then, and instead choose to kill the individually weaker minibosses first? (In case you miss the reference, the Braccus Rex fight can start out as this depending on party position).
It's absolutely insane of them to engage something in melee combat - only because they couldn't get closer to the mage in that turn - and then immediately break out of melee to go after the mage.
This too depends entirely on the tactical circumstances. Players acting entirely rationally will occasionally do this, when their primary objective is to take out the mage but they - for whatever reason - are willing to accept taking damage on the way, so long as they also do damage.
The
reasoning for doing so may well turn out to be poor in a given situation (and if it is an AI player, it probably
is poor reasoning most of the time, to the degree it makes sense to talk about reasoning in that case), but the action itself is certainly not something reserved to the insane.
The Man-at-Arms skills should have some way of guarding its allies, plain and simple. They don't need to be the sole target of every attack, they just need the most minute asset in party protection, and they're utterly lacking in this department in every way.
I disagree that this is needed.
Make good use of attacks of opportunity zones, CC, and environmental hazards and blockades to guide enemies into acting as you desire - or suffer damage or AP loss if they don't. You will not always succeed, nor should you, but the tools are available if you choose to use them.
- Just as the defensive tools are available to everybody to deal with being attacked in melee, when it does happen, whether they straight up increase defences, allow a rapid escape from melee, or impose CC of one type or another.
