[General Battuta]

Could we have a table flag to allow wingmen to use their persona responses for 'engage enemy'?

I'll check around to see which others aren't used either.

[Goober5000]

"Engaging enemy" is currently used when you order them to engage enemy but there are no enemies.  If there are enemies, "Yes sir" is used instead.

[General Battuta]

"Engaging enemy" is currently used when you order them to engage enemy but there are no enemies.  If there are enemies, "Yes sir" is used instead.

Hrm. Could we change that (presumably via flag or some other option) to this:

If enemies are present, use 'engaging enemy' response

If no enemies present, use 'yes'

So, basically, reverse it?

The 'yes' response is used for a lot of things and I'd like to get more diversity in custom personas. Good lines are being wasted!

[karajorma]

"Engaging enemy" is currently used when you order them to engage enemy but there are no enemies.  If there are enemies, "Yes sir" is used instead.

I tend to agree with Battuta that that is the wrong way round. While we could add another built-in type fairly easily I'm tempted to simply switch them round and see if that screws anyone over.

[General Battuta]

"Engaging enemy" is currently used when you order them to engage enemy but there are no enemies.  If there are enemies, "Yes sir" is used instead.

I tend to agree with Battuta that that is the wrong way round. While we could add another built-in type fairly easily I'm tempted to simply switch them round and see if that screws anyone over.

Or at least use 'engaging enemy' for both.

'Yes' is incredibly boring.

As I recall, there was at least one other option where 'yes' was used instead of a more specific reply.

[Goober5000]

I think it would be fine to switch them; there doesn't seem to be a problem with the FS1 or FS2 personas anyway.

But someone should double-check the source code to make sure I didn't miss a critical aspect, as I made my statement based on playtesting experience, not by examining the code logic.

[Aardwolf]

Heh... I was wondering why I never heard some of those in-game.

It really doesn't make much sense that they'd say "engaging enemy" when there aren't any enemies.

[karajorma]

I'll check it out myself then.

EDIT : The code has this comment above it.

// if no enemies present, use the affirmative, instead of engaging enemies message

So it's obvious V meant it to be the other way round. I'll swap it over.

[ssmit132]

As I recall, there was at least one other option where 'yes' was used instead of a more specific reply.

I believe what you're refering to is 'ignore target'. That uses 'yes', but there are specific messages specified in the table.