ADD_PARTY vs ADD_TUNNELLER_PARTY

[mefistotelis]

Originally reported on Google Code with ID 534

Currently there is no way to direct a party not containing a tunneller to a specific
player or action point. This affects;

- Maps with hero access to more than one player. All parties will need to be made into
tunneller parties so if you wished for purely thematic parties (Dwarfs/Mages/Bruisers/Lord),
you're SOL.
- Raiding parties that don't necessarily want to go for the heart. Say you wanted the
player to defend an objective in the middle of the map. You either assign tunneller
parties that will cut up the landscape, assign regular parties that beeline the heart
instead or you fill the entire map with bedrock. 
- Raiding parties from Keepers. For switched campaigns where the player plays the heroes,
it's wrong to see a group of Keeper creatures being led by a tunneller. Using a regular
party without a [head for] + [target] command results in the leader doing his primary
job (usually training) while the party intently follows (not sure if they eventually
die from starvation, didn't test).

Basically any situation that involves more than one keeper being an available target.

For reference, the two are;

- ADD_TUNNELLER_PARTY
[owner]
[party name]
[spawn point]
[head for] + [target]
// [level of tunneller]
// [gold carried by tunneller]

- ADD_PARTY
[owner]
[party name]
[spawn point]
[number of parties]

I'm not sure if this is something you could realistically change. Ideally, ADD_TUNNELLER
would be scrapped entirely and ADD_PARTY would receive the [head for] + [target] commands.
Tunnellers would then receive Leader priority in parties. I do remember reading something
about leader priority being not so well documented/understood though.

Reported by [email protected] on 2015-03-27 17:57:07

[walt253]

I don't think the merging of both can be done, for backward compatibility reasons. 🤔

[Loobinex]

It needs a proper design sure, but it is for sure wanted to direct a spawned party somewhere, even without a tunneler.