Page 1 of 1
Why no consistency with #CONDITION_POSITION ?
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2024 2:01 am
by DarkHorse2
Why can I not use '[<]' symbol with #CONDITION_POSITION in surrender_2.txt like I can in popup.txt ?
Why have the same statements act differently?
In popup.txt I can do the following...
Code: Select all
; Axis have less than 4 units within 10 hexes of Warsaw(188,76)
#CONDITION_POSITION= 188,76 [10,10] [4,4] [1] [0] [<]
But this causes a scripting error in surrender_2.txt
- CONDITION_POSITION error.jpg (131.78 KiB) Viewed 1249 times
Re: Why no consistency with #CONDITION_POSITION ?
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2024 1:07 pm
by Hubert Cater
This will be possible in the next update/patch, e.g. all events that use the #CONDITION_POSITION will be able to make use of the [<] as well as the <unit_id, ...> functionality.
Re: Why no consistency with #CONDITION_POSITION ?
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2024 12:00 am
by DarkHorse2
Hubert Cater wrote: Mon Aug 19, 2024 1:07 pm
This will be possible in the next update/patch, e.g. all events that use the #CONDITION_POSITION will be able to make use of the [<] as well as the <unit_id, ...> functionality.
Excellent.
This is a good direction to go!
Re: Why no consistency with #CONDITION_POSITION ?
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2026 5:09 pm
by Ason
I wanna know why this [<] isn't possible with other types like #ACTIVATE_POSITION OR #CANCEL_POSITION ..
Re: Why no consistency with #CONDITION_POSITION ?
Posted: Wed May 13, 2026 3:55 pm
by Ason
Any chance we will get possibility of [<] for more conditions like Activate/Cancel_position in guards scripts for example, in the future?
Re: Why no consistency with #CONDITION_POSITION ?
Posted: Fri May 15, 2026 2:08 pm
by Hubert Cater
It looks like we added [<] for ACTIVATION_POSITION, just not yet for CANCEL_POSITION, but I will add it to the list
Re: Why no consistency with #CONDITION_POSITION ?
Posted: Fri May 15, 2026 7:19 pm
by Ason
Awesome! Thank you for reply!