Should returning be overridden at all?
 

In the thread about bug with golem ignoring returning script it was revealed that many people from time to time run into a problem when AI of a mage considers opposition weak, decides not to use gems at all and so doesn't cast returning. As a result, very often major battles are lost, expensive SC's are slayed and good tactics are ruined.
It seems to me that Returning spells are too specific to be handled as usual spells because they look much more like "Retreat" order than battle spells and "Retreat" orders are never ignored by AI which is absolutely correct.
So the question is: Should scripted "Returning" be overridden by AI if it decides that opposition is "weak" (rather relative term, btw) or not? What do you think?

Re: Should returning be overridden at all?
 

I can see the point. The usual method for handling spells would be moving it higher on the priority category but that wouldnt be a good idea because then AIs might use it when its not wanted.

But are there any other spells that call into a never-overriden category? If we get an exclusion for this spell then wont there be a list of other cases people want excluded? This might be another of those places where we would be opening the door to a load of IF this and IF that statements in the code which has been avoided.

Re: Should returning be overridden at all?
 

I can't think of such spells now. Probably not...
The point is that returning spells (Returning and VoR) are not the battlefield spells in the common meaning and that's the big difference between them and any other spell in the game.

Re: Should returning be overridden at all?
 

Create a flag that says do not override this spell does not change much code.

In that regard, I also think a game by game, user by user do not cast list is a good idea, and does not involve a lot of code. (create, maintain, load, save and use the list probably takes less than 100 line of actual code) That would make save game incompatible with previous versions, but that happened a few times already. :)

Re: Should returning be overridden at all?
 

Well I'm a doofus...I misread the question...so scratch the one (so far) yes vote.

Re: Should returning be overridden at all?
 

So fired. ;p

Re: Should returning be overridden at all?
 

Despite being harmed by this on occasion, I do like that it acts as a counter to Returning.

Re: Should returning be overridden at all?
 

Does returning really need countering? Maybe it's worth starting to think of countering retreat?)
Returning and retreat are different in one major aspect: returning allows to safely escape from assassination attempt and from province surrounded by enemies while retreat doesn't. OTOH, Returning is heavily dependent on the home province, however if you lost your home province, you probably already lost the game as well.:)

Re: Should returning be overridden at all?
 

Retreat has a counter, which is putting troops behind the Retreater...which is countered by Flyers that Retreat, and is countered by Storm....which is countered by Flyers who can fly in Storm....

This game is based on counters, so Returning needs a counter (and no, killing the mage is not a real counter since it works for any effect). Sure, "taking the home province" may seem like a counter, but it really isn't since it implies your opponent has already lost and really doesn't need his stuff countered.

Re: Should returning be overridden at all?
 

How do you put troops behind the retreater when defender gets to move first?