bugfix(ai): Fix bugged unit behavior when attacked during guard mode

[CookieLandProjects]

• Closes issue Using guardmode while the unit is under attack result in conflicting movement and fire behavior #2097

Made Guard do what its supposed to instead of retaliating when its not supposed to.

EDIT: Most of the bug description was moved from the code to here:

// This fixes the conflicting movement and fire behavior in Guard mode when the unit is under attack
//
// Root cause: In retail, both AI_GUARD_INNER and AI_GUARD_RETURN had the attackAggressors
// handler attached.
// While the INNER state was issuing attack orders or RETURN state was
// issuing movement orders back to the guard position,
// the aggressor handler kept firing attack commands on every shot.
// This resulted in confliction in orders, causing the unit to do unexpected behavior.
//
// Fix: Remove the attackAggressors handler from AI_GUARD_INNER and AI_GUARD_RETURN.
// The inner guard engagement logic is still handled within the AI_GUARD_INNER state,
// and once the unit decides to return (RETURN state), it performs a clean movement without
// competing attack orders (unless something enters its Inner guard range).

[greptile-apps]

Greptile Summary

This PR fixes a conflicting movement and fire behavior in Guard mode by removing attackAggressors condition handlers from the AI_GUARD_RETURN and AI_GUARD_INNER states across Generals and GeneralsMD. The fix is gated behind #if !RETAIL_COMPATIBLE_CRC preprocessor guards so the retail code path is preserved.

• In Generals/AIGuard.cpp, the attackAggressors handler is removed from AI_GUARD_RETURN; AI_GUARD_INNER already lacked it in the retail build.
• In GeneralsMD/AIGuard.cpp, both AI_GUARD_INNER and AI_GUARD_RETURN have their attackAggressors handler removed, matching the description in the PR. AIGuardRetaliate.cpp mirrors this for AI_GUARD_RETALIATE_RETURN.

Confidence Score: 5/5

The changes are minimal and surgical — each state definition is narrowly wrapped in a preprocessor guard, leaving the retail code path completely intact and activating the fix only under the non-retail build.

All three files make consistent, parallel changes: the attackAggressors handler is removed only from states whose internal logic already manages engagement or movement, while states that legitimately need to respond to attacks (IDLE) retain the handler. The diff is small, easy to audit, and the logic matches the documented root cause.

No files require special attention — each change is self-contained within the state machine constructor and the fix pattern is applied consistently across all three files.

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
Generals/Code/GameEngine/Source/GameLogic/AI/AIGuard.cpp	Wraps AI_GUARD_RETURN state definition with #if RETAIL_COMPATIBLE_CRC to remove the attackAggressors handler on the fix path; AI_GUARD_INNER already had no such handler in the Generals codebase.
GeneralsMD/Code/GameEngine/Source/GameLogic/AI/AIGuard.cpp	Both AI_GUARD_INNER and AI_GUARD_RETURN are wrapped; the attackAggressors handler is stripped from both states on the fix path, matching the ZH-specific retail behavior described in the PR.
GeneralsMD/Code/GameEngine/Source/GameLogic/AI/AIGuardRetaliate.cpp	Only AI_GUARD_RETALIATE_RETURN is wrapped; AI_GUARD_RETALIATE_INNER already had no attackAggressors in the original code, so the fix is correctly scoped.

Flowchart

%%{init: {'theme': 'neutral'}}%%
flowchart TD
    subgraph RETAIL["RETAIL_COMPATIBLE_CRC = 1 (original retail)"]
        R1[AI_GUARD_RETURN + attackAggressors] -->|success| R2[AI_GUARD_IDLE + attackAggressors]
        R1 -->|attacked| R_ATK[AI_GUARD_ATTACK_AGGRESSOR]
        R2 -->|enemy in range| R3[AI_GUARD_INNER + attackAggressors]
        R3 -->|attacked| R_ATK
        R_ATK --> R1
    end
    subgraph FIX["RETAIL_COMPATIBLE_CRC = 0 (fix)"]
        F1[AI_GUARD_RETURN - no attackAggressors] -->|success| F2[AI_GUARD_IDLE + attackAggressors]
        F2 -->|enemy in range| F3[AI_GUARD_INNER - no attackAggressors]
        F2 -->|attacked| F_ATK[AI_GUARD_ATTACK_AGGRESSOR]
        F_ATK --> F1
    end

Loading

%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {"darkMode": true, "background": "#0d1117", "primaryColor": "#21262d", "primaryTextColor": "#e6edf3", "primaryBorderColor": "#8b949e", "lineColor": "#8b949e", "textColor": "#e6edf3", "edgeLabelBackground": "#161b22", "actorBkg": "#21262d", "actorBorder": "#8b949e", "actorTextColor": "#e6edf3", "actorLineColor": "#8b949e", "signalColor": "#8b949e", "signalTextColor": "#e6edf3", "noteBkgColor": "#373320", "noteBorderColor": "#d4a72c", "noteTextColor": "#f0e6c0", "labelBoxBkgColor": "#21262d", "labelBoxBorderColor": "#8b949e", "labelTextColor": "#e6edf3", "loopTextColor": "#e6edf3", "activationBkgColor": "#30363d", "activationBorderColor": "#8b949e"}}}%%
flowchart TD
    subgraph RETAIL["RETAIL_COMPATIBLE_CRC = 1 (original retail)"]
        R1[AI_GUARD_RETURN + attackAggressors] -->|success| R2[AI_GUARD_IDLE + attackAggressors]
        R1 -->|attacked| R_ATK[AI_GUARD_ATTACK_AGGRESSOR]
        R2 -->|enemy in range| R3[AI_GUARD_INNER + attackAggressors]
        R3 -->|attacked| R_ATK
        R_ATK --> R1
    end
    subgraph FIX["RETAIL_COMPATIBLE_CRC = 0 (fix)"]
        F1[AI_GUARD_RETURN - no attackAggressors] -->|success| F2[AI_GUARD_IDLE + attackAggressors]
        F2 -->|enemy in range| F3[AI_GUARD_INNER - no attackAggressors]
        F2 -->|attacked| F_ATK[AI_GUARD_ATTACK_AGGRESSOR]
        F_ATK --> F1
    end

Loading

_{Reviews (7): Last reviewed commit: "Fixed guard (retaliation) states." | Re-trigger Greptile}

[xezon]

This needs more work.

Can you explain in more technical detail why and how this change is correcting the bug?

[Caball009]

@CookieLandProjects We don't include issue links or ids (anymore). I think the comments can be reduced to something much more terse:

// TheSuperHackers @bugfix 09/04/2026 This fixes the conflicting movement and fire behavior in Guard mode when the unit is under attack.
defineState(AI_GUARD_INNER, newInstance(AIGuardInnerState)(this), AI_GUARD_OUTER, AI_GUARD_OUTER);
defineState(AI_GUARD_RETURN, newInstance(AIGuardReturnState)(this), AI_GUARD_IDLE, AI_GUARD_INNER);

...

// TheSuperHackers @bugfix 09/04/2026 This fixes the conflicting movement and fire behavior in Guard mode when the unit is under attack.
defineState(AI_GUARD_RETALIATE_RETURN, newInstance(AIGuardRetaliateReturnState)(this), AI_GUARD_RETALIATE_IDLE, AI_GUARD_RETALIATE_INNER);

and then put the rest of the explanation in a comment here and / or the first post.

Please also rebase so this can be tested with the latest main branch.

[xezon]

Comment text can be polished.

Pull title needs polishing.

Needs replication to Generals.

[Caball009]

I took the liberty of making changes to the code comments, so that this PR can move forward. I think the only thing that remains is testing, and I'll ask around if testers can do that.

Feedback has been addressed.

[DrGoldFish1]

I have tested the issue before and after the fix and tested it for air, tank and infantry units and the bug seem to be fully fixed for all unit types with guardmode. No conflicting behavior is being seen after the fix.

Changes since approval.