Some Engineer logics on Warheads by FS-21 · Pull Request #1801 · Phobos-developers/Phobos

FS-21 · 2025-08-07T16:51:31Z

Engineer logics on Warheads

Now any InfantryType, VehicleType, BuildingType or AircraftType can execute some operations engineers do without loosing the firer in the process.
FakeEngineer.CanRepairBridges, if set to true, when a building with BridgeRepairHut=yes linked to a bridge is affected by the Warhead then all destroyed bridge sections will be fixed.
FakeEngineer.CanDestroyBridges, if set to true, when a building with BridgeRepairHut=yes linked to a bridge is affected by the Warhead then all the bridge will be destroyed.
FakeEngineer.CanCaptureBuildings, if set to true, a building with Capturable=true or NeedsEngineer=true is affected by the Warhead then the building will be captured by the house's firer.
FakeEngineer.DisarmBombs, if set to true, an attached bomb will be removed if the target is affected by the Warhead.

In rulesmd.ini:

[SOMEWARHEAD]                          ; WarheadType
FakeEngineer.CanRepairBridges=false    ; boolean
FakeEngineer.CanDestroyBridges=false   ; boolean
FakeEngineer.CanCaptureBuildings=false ; boolean
FakeEngineer.DisarmBombs=false         ; boolean

Regarding "Forcing specific weapon against certain targets":

ForceWeapon.Capture forces specified weapon to be used if the target building is capturable.

In rulesmd.ini:

[SOMETECHNO]   
ForceWeapon.Capture=-1     ; integer, -1 to disable

- Now `infantry` and `units` can execute some operations engineers do without loosing the firer like happens with engineers. - `FakeEngineer.CanRepairBridges`, if set to true, when a building with `BridgeRepairHut=yes` linked to a bridge is affected by the Warhead then all destroyed bridge sections will be fixed. - `FakeEngineer.CanDestroyBridges`, if set to true, when a building with `BridgeRepairHut=yes` linked to a bridge is affected by the Warhead then all the bridge will be destroyed. - `FakeEngineer.CanCaptureBuildings`, if set to true, a building with `Capturable=true` or `NeedsEngineer=true` is affected by the Warhead then the building will be captured by the house's firer. In `rulesmd.ini`: ```ini [SOMEWARHEAD] ; WarheadType FakeEngineer.CanRepairBridges=false ; boolean FakeEngineer.CanDestroyBridges=false ; boolean FakeEngineer.CanCaptureBuildings=false ; boolean ```

…gicsOnWarheads

Removed all repetitive code related to checks and placed all that in a new method called CanBeAffectedByFakeEngineer(...)

Found a silent crash. Code tweaks

- Added ForceWeapon.Capture. - Added FakeEngineer.BombDisarm. - Code cleanup and improvements.

FS-21 · 2025-08-07T16:52:24Z

Example of a soldier using multiweapons with these tags in warheads:

github-actions · 2025-08-07T16:57:04Z

Nightly build for this pull request:

compiled-dll-626c00f8c05dcd14029829f2f97b11bc8796ecde.zip
These artifacts will expire in 90 days and will not be available for download after that time.

This comment is automatic and is meant to allow guests to get latest nightly builds for this pull request without registering. It is updated on every successful build.

NetsuNegi · 2025-08-11T09:44:18Z

warhead has its own BombDisarm, why do you add FakeEngineer.DisarmBombs ?

fagonghaiwo · 2025-08-11T14:53:53Z

FakeEngineer.DisarmBombs & FakeEngineer.CanDestroyBridges dont work

and code improvements like adding the "send event" in the capture building, because I think the radar event the capture function has doesn't trigger the Enter event in map triggers. Also, now can be triggered both repair bridge & destroy bridge depending of the current bridge status if both tags are enabled in the warhead.

FS-21 · 2025-08-12T07:26:11Z

warhead has its own BombDisarm, why do you add FakeEngineer.DisarmBombs ?

Vanilla tag "BombDisarm" makes the wapon unusable for other purposes that isn't defuse bombs, also disrupts the weapons selection if you try to use the multiweapons and that tag isn't in the last weapon of the multiweapon list.
If you use a repairer unit against a damaged unit with an attached bomb say "bye, bye!" to that unit because you won't be able to trigger the BombDisarm weapon with enough time because the unit is being repaired by another weapon.

Try yourself if you aren't sure of my findings (I could be wrong) :-)

FS-21 · 2025-08-12T07:34:23Z

FakeEngineer.DisarmBombs & FakeEngineer.CanDestroyBridges dont work

You are right about the FakeEngineer.CanDestroyBridges, I broke it days before I started this PR, I'm sorry. Now is fixed. You can have both repair & destroy tags in the same warhead and the bridge will be repaired or destroyed depending the current status of the bridge.
FakeEngineer.DisarmBombs is more "companion" of another WH's weapon.

As I mentioned to NetsuNegi I used this new disarm bombs tag in a repair weapon inside a multiweapon in a combat engineer with this weapons order:
1º) Offensive weapon (limited to attack enemies)
2º) Capture & Repair bridge weapon (limited to enemies)
3º) Repair weapon (limited to friendly and until the damaged reachs a 99% of the health, because I use the AttackFriendlies=yes for auto-targeting friendly stuff, including buildings and I had to restrict the continuous repairs to objects with <100% of health. Also this repair weapon includes the FakeEngineer.DisarmBombs for disarm bombs while is doing repairs).
4º) Last weapon with the classic DisarmBombs=yes in the warhead for other cases.

…gicsOnWarheads

fagonghaiwo · 2025-08-12T08:49:51Z

when FakeEngineer.CanDestroyBridges=1 & FakeEngineer.CanRepairBridges=1 in a same warhead, bridge cant be repaired or destroyed

FS-21 · 2025-08-12T08:59:26Z

when FakeEngineer.CanDestroyBridges=1 & FakeEngineer.CanRepairBridges=1 in a same warhead, bridge cant be repaired or destroyed

; general multiple small arms fire
[SA]
Verses=100%,80%,80%,25%,13%,13%,38%,25%,13%,100%,100%
InfDeath=1
AnimList=PIFFPIFF,PIFFPIFF
Bullets=yes
ProneDamage=70%
Tiberium=no
FakeEngineer.CanRepairBridges=true
FakeEngineer.CanDestroyBridges=true

fagonghaiwo · 2025-08-12T11:34:15Z

sad
[FlakGuyATWH]
Versus.bridge=3%
FakeEngineer.CanRepairBridges=1 ; boolean
FakeEngineer.CanDestroyBridges=1 ; boolean
FakeEngineer.CanCaptureBuildings=1 ; boolean
FakeEngineer.DisarmBombs=1 ; boolean

fagonghaiwo · 2025-08-12T11:38:57Z

neither repair

fagonghaiwo · 2025-08-12T17:26:26Z

sad again

fagonghaiwo · 2025-09-02T12:16:00Z

after update, FakeEngineer.CanRepairBridges can repair bridges which are NOT broken.

FakeEngineer.DisarmBombs still doesnt work.

TaranDahl

Too many problems. I think the author lacks the necessary understanding of the unit's firing procedure.

TaranDahl · 2026-01-12T10:13:09Z

+		// Send engineer's "enter" event
+		auto const pTag = pBuilding->AttachedTag;
+		if (args->Attacker && pTag)
+			pTag->RaiseEvent(TriggerEvent::EnteredBy, args->Attacker, CellStruct::Empty);


I think this is unreasonable because nothing has entered the target.

Should raise DestroyedByAnything

Regarding raising TriggerEvent::EnteredBy instead of DestroyedByAnything (or omitting it):

If I'm not wrong in RA2 and YR map scripting (both original campaign missions and custom community maps), mappers use the trigger event Entered By... (Trigger Event 1) on neutral Tech Buildings, mission-critical structures, and Bridge Repair Huts to detect when an engineer captures the building or repairs the bridge.

Since entering the structure was vanilla's only way for an engineer to capture buildings or trigger bridge repairs, EnteredBy serves as the de-facto event hook for map scripts to advance mission objectives (e.g., "Capture Tech Hospital -> Entered by Player -> Objective Completed / Reveal Area").

If we do not raise EnteredBy: Any map trigger expecting the structure to be captured by an engineer will never trigger, breaking campaign progression and custom map scripts.
If we were to raise DestroyedByAnything on capture: It would break missions that have fail conditions like "Protect this structure (Fail if DestroyedByAnybody)", causing an immediate Mission Failed upon capturing the building instead of securing it.
Therefore, raising TriggerEvent::EnteredBy is intentional and necessary to maintain full compatibility with existing map scripts and trigger systems when capturing structures or repairing bridge huts remotely via warheads.

If we do not raise EnteredBy: Any map trigger expecting the structure to be captured by an engineer will never trigger, breaking campaign progression and custom map scripts.

Why would an unmerged feature break anything? It doesn't modify any vanilla behavior.

Because is supposed to be used by support units like engineers/saboteurs and those doesn'tdestroy, they capture. I can't imagine these tags in standard units.

FS-21 · 2026-08-28T14:40:53Z

I applied feedback and small changes.

FS-21 added 12 commits July 25, 2025 18:10

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/develop' into feature/EngineerLo…

080b41f

…gicsOnWarheads

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/develop' into feature/EngineerLo…

a15fbc4

…gicsOnWarheads

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/develop' into feature/EngineerLo…

798731f

…gicsOnWarheads

Now buildings and aircrafts are supported

a951ea5

Code improvements

41e1168

Removed all repetitive code related to checks and placed all that in a new method called CanBeAffectedByFakeEngineer(...)

tweak

02c62d8

Merge branch 'develop' into feature/EngineerLogicsOnWarheads

1c3adee

Crash fix & code tweaks

d262fa0

Found a silent crash. Code tweaks

2 new tags and improvements

9ad85f7

- Added ForceWeapon.Capture. - Added FakeEngineer.BombDisarm. - Code cleanup and improvements.

Merge branch 'develop' into feature/EngineerLogicsOnWarheads

af310d2

Merge branch 'develop' into feature/EngineerLogicsOnWarheads

ec4e66c

FS-21 added 2 commits August 12, 2025 08:24

tweak

f9720f0

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/develop' into feature/EngineerLo…

8e0a3cc

…gicsOnWarheads

Merge branch 'develop' into feature/EngineerLogicsOnWarheads

d89f94e

TaranDahl requested changes Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

TaranDahl added the Needs rework The structure or methodology is "mise en question" label Jan 12, 2026

TaranDahl added ⚙️T1 T1 maintainer review is sufficient ❓Unhardcoding / Customization Make something more tweakable labels Jan 12, 2026

FS-21 added 4 commits August 28, 2026 13:18

changes

54b518e

more changes

a03fe1b

fix docs

5de52b2

Merge branch 'develop' into feature/EngineerLogicsOnWarheads

7f5d106

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

FS-21 commented Aug 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Engineer logics on Warheads

Uh oh!

FS-21 commented Aug 7, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

NetsuNegi commented Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

fagonghaiwo commented Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

FS-21 commented Aug 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

FS-21 commented Aug 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fagonghaiwo commented Aug 12, 2025

Uh oh!

FS-21 commented Aug 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fagonghaiwo commented Aug 12, 2025

Uh oh!

fagonghaiwo commented Aug 12, 2025

Uh oh!

fagonghaiwo commented Aug 12, 2025

Uh oh!

fagonghaiwo commented Sep 2, 2025

Uh oh!

TaranDahl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

TaranDahl Jan 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TaranDahl Jan 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

FS-21 Aug 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TaranDahl Aug 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

FS-21 Aug 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

FS-21 commented Aug 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

FS-21 commented Aug 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Aug 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

FS-21 commented Aug 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

FS-21 commented Aug 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

FS-21 commented Aug 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading