I wasn’t talking about the player fully taking over for the AI, but thinking of situations where the AI rules constrain it down to a couple of possibilities, then let the player decide the least-worst among them. You can conceptualize that as representing confusion, poor leadership, or misdirection, or just say it’s a concession to convenience in terms of not having to exhaustively flow-chart out every last conceivable edge case for the AI to follow.
I don’t have a wargame example game on hand (I’m only a dabbler), but here are a couple (from Gloomhaven and Marvel United):
Ambiguity: If the rules ever make any monster action ambiguous because there are multiple viable hexes to which the monster could move, multiple equally viable targets to heal or attack, or multiple hexes a monster could push or pull a character into, the players must decide which option the monster will take.
Breaking Ties: If there are ever events or effects whose conditions are tied, the players decide how they should be resolved.
There’s no suggestion there that the players have to get into the head of the monster and figure out what they’d be most likely to do in real life. At every decision point, the players are trying their best to win, and can freely pick the most beneficial result, so it feels fine to me.
The AI isn’t playing the same game as the player, and the design should embrace that. Its purpose is to provide a somewhat unpredictable and varied tactical canvas on which the player’s decisions can succeed or fail.