Discussion and development of scenarios and campaigns for the game.
The problem is that leader_shares_keep is a part of the passive_leader_shares_keep property and that one is the only comfortable way to make a leader defend himself if attacked (instead of just retaliating) but also keeps him from rushing into battle and getting himself killed easily.
I think I will add a version check that checks if the version is 1.14.5 or higher and uses that option only then.
Btw, I did report the problem with AI crashing with two leaders (but I did no pin it to the keep sharing candidate action) a few years ago somewhere (I can't recall where) and assumed it was fixed because I could not replicate it in this scenario. Then, something else made the right circumstances possible.
Unless I misunderstand you, I don't think that's the case. There are three different parts to this:Dugi wrote: ↑September 10th, 2018, 6:38 amThe problem is that leader_shares_keep is a part of the passive_leader_shares_keep property and that one is the only comfortable way to make a leader defend himself if attacked (instead of just retaliating) but also keeps him from rushing into battle and getting himself killed easily.
- passive_leader is an AI aspect that disables all leader actions other than attacking adjacent enemies (well, and leader_goals, but that is irrelevant here).
- passive_leader_shares_keep is another aspect that enables the leader_shares_keep candidate action, so that the leader will make room for an allied close-by leader at the end of the AI turn (and move back to the keep at the beginning of the next turn), even if
- Finally, there is the leader_shares_keep candidate action that performs the moving off the keep action.
EDIT: struck out part above that was wrong, due to me mis-reading the wiki
Maybe it changed, but in the past, it used to be that passive_leader does not even attack adjacent enemies.
Hmm, yes, apparently the wiki is wrong about that. I just tested it and that is still the case — which is strange, I thought I'd cleaned up everything on that page (but at least it is consistent with my recollection then, I remembered it as you do).
However, the other parts of what I said are still true, the passive_leader_shares_keep aspect does not change that (and I tested that too now).
EDIT: Blargh, I'm an idiot. I completely mis-read the wiki. It clearly states that adjacent enemies are not attacked. Not sure what I was reading... Well, at least I feel better about not having made such a blatant mistake when I cleaned up that page.
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited