Replying to mimo:
session.placement.js
I would have used randIntExclusive(0, 65535) instead of randIntInclusive(0, 65534)
but that's just a personnal preference
I did change the number because now we set the maximum directly and maximum + 1, but when its better/cleaner to have this another way, I wouln't mind. (Changed the value in GIT for now to 65535)
chatLaunchAttack: the additionnal condition on proba when HugeAttack was mostly because i was short of idea for a good second sentence, so I reused the ones from normal attacks. It would be better to add another sentence and remove this extra condition on proba.
And if you also have nice alternate sentences for all these AI dialogs, feel free to add them to make more diversity.
I think its better to split this of into another patch/ticket (patch is already big enough), that hugeAttack thingy can then be changed aswell. (But fully agree, that it should be done.)
chatAnswerRequestAttack: I'm not a fan of interlinked ternaries which i find difficult to read. I prefer an if+ternary
I like the ternary's better here, since we don't need some variable declaration, maybe with inlined strings it would have been a bit unreadable but since they have moved to the top of the file, I don't see why this is unreadable.