Tried master version against bonecrusher at fortscav.
There are some problems with structures layout among others:
1. Chess like defense struct layout. The shift seems to happen at some point due to bad alignment with terrain. Though units usually try to move between diagonally placed structs, it happens so slow, that they are practically unpassable.
2. Bad idea to ignore building defenses near oil at high-oil maps. Oils are as important as base itself. It would better to depend not on map type, but on structure number limit, so that number of dericks at least distance from base would be treated as essential for defense. At least from truck rush.
3. Bad usage of repair facilities. It looks as if cobra did even this by micromanaging, without retreat at damage option. Even if it is necessary in some cases (to prevent retreating units passing through dangerous places), it still could give command to retreat for repair at some distance from base.
3.1. Noticed, that if two or more facilities are enough close, retreating unit places itself so, that more facilities can reach it. Besides first coming to mind 2x2 facilities grid, I eventually got even better configuration, placing all 5 facilities in pentagram formation, which has point, where all 5 facilities can reach. There is monospaced-text demo for layout (without common space):
Yet, when trying cobra_v1, it placed one of centers in front of base, while others - at side, similar to this screenshots. Using repair cluster, there still could be some point, where units could be all placed by micromanagent without healing command. Though... should not simple click to repair center have same effect as return-for-repair command, with automatic distribution between facilities? If so, than if movement to facility is done by some virtual click to repair center, than such command could treat same effect. From another side, placing repair centers at bigger distance allowes more units to collect around them with less mess for those units, which need to get out of mess, to reach rally point, thus freeing space for more waiting units.
By the way, specially for micromanagement way, there could be temporary retreat point, not far from current enemy front, each with group of repair units, set to hold position. Also, if AI plans to use aviation, clusters of single facilities, surrounded each by 12 vtol pads (3 per side) could be used. Of course, when AI desides to use them for ground units (e.g. if enemy front stably develops backward), any vtols should be removed from its pads to avoid mess (if it uses so much micro, it could also direct vtols to specific pads, even not allowing them to attack chaotically one by one, like human players would do).
4. Do any AIs manage rally points for factories and repair centers? It is problem, since units in middle of base usually stay on the way of trucs during maintainance. Imho, placing rally point should be as simple as building defense. Also it seems strance, that just-produced combat units go to combat immediately as if had proper rally point, but units from repair don't. These points could be placed somewhere outside base.
5. If some unit path management could be possible, this would be used in items 4, 3, 1 and some more. In short, these should include trucks maintainance path, path for constructed units to rally points and path for retreating units. Also it could affect base build order. According to it, generators and labs should be in deepest inside of base. Tank factories should be after them, so that tanks have easy access to upgrade them. Cyborg factories are ok to be in front of them, since they don't have upgrades. Vtol factories could be deeper, since vtols don't need to move by ground. Repair centers need to be positioned so, that mess of units, waiting for repair, doesn't stay on way of produced units.
6. If conception of player/team front is doable, it could be used to place rally points. I noticed, that at this map all BC units are directing to middle oils at some side from very base entrance, only changint couse when detecting enemy units (meaning, that unit detects, not AI player).
7. Remembering nullbot movement style for combat group, it seems to have advantage, moving forth and bath, since it allowes quick regroup, since damaged units more easily retreat when surrounding units in movement. Could be not as advanced as side movement, but in some places it is only possible movement style (like in any narrow passages. One drawback though is that nullbot set back movement point too far, so that approaching units also turned without stable closing to combat point.
7.1. Cobra tries to regroup units when they are damaget, but seems doing it not so effectively. Combined with 7(.0), units, included to potential group, including those, still in approach, could be frequently moved slightly behind of current contact point so, that forward unit retreat, but those behind approach, each new movement slightly more behind. This way retreating units would give good fight back, eventually going to reliable offense.
7.2. I remember, there was question about nullbot ability to measure enemy treat size, so that required size of battle group could adapt. Is not it possible to detect e.g. enemy units in sensor range of each unit? If so, this info could be used to measure this. More exactly, it should ration between units under fire to units, reaching enemy with fire, but for better planning, it could be units in sensor range.
8. Some idea, how sensors could be used, possible for insane skill level. When passing through unsecured zone, they could move in zigzag way (hovers only), so that enemy arty would have hard time with it. There could be pack of replacement sensors in some safety, and sensors would be used one by one, probably made as tough as possible (for hover of course). Btw, some bodies could be ok to be with trucks/half-trucks, especially nexus bodies (middle nexus body should be enough manueverable with trucks due to higher rotation speed). For implementation, there could be some center line, with direction changing each time unit crosses it.