Settings improvements for leaders

[elidupree]

Currently, we rather hackily ask whether a leader is a "Red Mage", when the real intent is to ask whether they were derived from a faction from the era. Is there a better way to check for this?

Separately, in "EoHS with any era" in campaigns, we currently have no rule that can distinguish the player (who should become a wizard) from AI sides (who, given that I haven't taught AI to learn skills or cast spells, should become "protected non-wizards"). This means that AI leaders are "wizards" but are basically just nerfed, because they don't get a ranged attack. We could make a setting to explicitly distinguish human players from AI players, but we would need to decide how it interacts with the above (in that there is actually FOUR cases, "EoHS faction or not" * "human or AI"). Distinctions could also be made based on whether the leader exists at the beginning of the campaign, appears at the beginning of a subsequent scenario, or appears in the middle of the scenario (although I'm not sure those distinctions gain us anything).

Another way to improve the "nerfing AI leaders" issue would be to make the AI learn skills. This isn't done in multiplayer because I wanted to let you pick skills if a human player is substituted in later. But in campaigns, you can't swap a human player into an AI side. Wait, there are probably some campaigns which deliberately make AI leaders human-controlled, and then I would want you to be able to pick skills. There could be different rules for allies, but even a formerly hostile leader might join the party in some scenario. I could make an explicit rule for that ("when a leader who was never previously human-controlled becomes human-controlled for the first time, they lose all of their skills, so you can retrain them") which would work in both multiplayer and single player… although it would be nice if there was a way to communicate to the players why it was happening