@beelee So for the first one:
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Battleship_Ordered_to_Vichy_Port" attachTo="French" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Axis_Conquer_All_France:Vichy_active:conditionAttachmentFrenchBB"/>
<option name="chance" value="3:6"/>
<option name="when" value="before:frenchCombatMove"/>
<option name="uses" value="1"/>
I believe uses only is used up if it actually fires (you hit the chance) so you can't use that for what you are trying to do. You instead need to have another trigger that does fire after this one (say during after:frenchCombatMove) which sets a condition to false which is used in your trigger. As you also mention, if it only happens on a certain turn(s) then you could use the turns parameter instead.
The second one looks correct except that if the BB would arrive before the 2 uses, it then fires once the BB leaves. So you would need to set a condition to be false once the BB returns so the notification doesn't show when it leaves.
@Panther said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:
@Cernel said in How do you make a unit autodestroyed if alone without being an infrastructure or a transport:
I mean, once they are alone in offence and they can retreat, you are free to keep having them killed or retreat any time you want right, without any autoremoval?
Yes. autoremoval applies to defenseless (defending) transports only.
For completeness: In case the battle leaves an attacking transport facing a defending transport only, the option to remain in the contested seazone is given ("transport stalemate").
Yeah, and, for what I tested so far, the stalemate between offenceless and defenceless always work (wrongly, when you can retreat, as you are not offered the retreat choice, but this is off topic), not requiring the "Transport Casualties Restricted" v3 property to be true, that is another element of inconsistency with the fact that both offensive and defensive autoremovals work only if that property is true, instead, that is particularly nonsensical in the moment the stalemate exists only since v3, while the offensive autoremoval, if you cannot retreat only, exists in Classic, instead (of course, on defence only since v3 too, as before there were no defence 0 units).
@Cernel Well, if anything is decided or changed, I would still say my example names….
…are much more self-explanatory and simple to understand than what you just explained. But, whatever works
@all ok glad you mentioned what mod/map this is for ... we been getting lots of threads and questions for questionable "projects" and had you mentioned at the start your mod/map then I would not have wondered!
Plus your title "simple Trigger help" also got me suspicious.
Sure call me the forum nerd that likes to keep the trolls in check ... if a guy who was on his student council and quarterbacked his highschool and football teams and played Can-Am baseball 10 years is a nerd
well went ahead and renamed them. It didn't fix my issue though. The reason i originally asked, was I had gone through 4 players and they all worked and the 5th one started nuttin up.
I guess I just needed to struggle for a couple more hours lol. The 5th Player is unique and doesn't have a "Place" phase. It has "EndTurn" instead. About fried my poor little brain
Oh well, hopefully the next 48 hours will be more productive heh heh
I'm not specifically thinking about this change for the purposes of dealing with air transports. I did indeed set them to be infrastructures which are destroyed on capture by the way (edit mode fix if this happens).
I'm thinking of if there's a way to get rid of the stupid inbuilt AA guns in Global and v5. Works fine in v5 but Global it revives the old strategic bombing bug, i.e. all bombers targeted together. Which is not acceptable.
Also pointing out that, in a game like TripleA, where 1 round may be several months, but you can perform 1 single movement with each air unit, that movement is representing a number of going back and forth from the two territories you are landing on (that may be the same if you land where you started), as many as the implied real time would allow, at least in my mind. So, say, if you have 1 infantry and 1 transport, and the transport can transport 1 infantry per turn, that infantry should be the amount that you can transport over the course of the implied real time represented by the round (assuming you have 1 turn per round).
Similarly, for example, in a game where "Germany" is a single territory, and you bomb it from "United Kingdom", landing in there too, I see that like those bombers doing that same operation for many times over, in game being simplified by you doing it only once.
@RoiEX I wonder if the apostrophe is ok to have in file names (I suppose not)? For example, "New York" in the xml has to be "New_York" in the file name of the image (right?). Can, instead, "Bishop's Stortford" remain as "Bishop's_Stortford" in the image file name?
Anyways, I see your point: there may be more undesirable characters than just the space, that you may have in names inside the game file (xml), and, differently from the underscore, that is clearly representing a space, they may be not so obvious to convert for visualization.
Though, I think TripleA could be fine simply disallowing all of them in names. I think the space is the only one you don't want to pass, even though, of course, you could still write "New York" as "NewYork" (not a fan).
By the way, are you aware that this system of disallowing spaces in names entirely is already partially in place? For example, you cannot have units (and other things) with spaces in them.
So, @RoiEX or any developers, can you explain me why, as a potential mapmaker, I am allowed to have a territory called "New York" in the name, calling its image file name as "New_York", while I'm forbidden having a unit called "AA Gun", and I, instead, have to call it "AAGun" or "AA_Gun", or whatever, and exactly the same as its image file name, instead?
TripleA has already a few different methods. Substantially, what I would prefer is that it goes with only one of them in all cases, preferably one that allows a better look to the final user (I think we can all agree that "New York" and "Horse Artillery" look better than "New_York" and "Horse_Artillery" or "NewYork" and "HorseArtillery", right?). Wouldn't this be at least better? But I know I'm talking mostly theorically, as I realize there would be huge compatibility issues.
@Stohrm Engines like Unity & Unreal are basically physics engines which allow game-play. If you don't need physics, you are better off with an engine that does not have the overhead of a physics engine.
I think a good example is House of Habsburg. In that one you have "castle" and "cannon", that are both "infrastructures". Once only castles or cannons remain, the enemy captures the castles and the cannons are destroyed (the automatic tooltip for the cannons say "Can be Captured", that I'm sure is going to mislead everyone not knowing the game) (it would be more realistic if cannons change to something you can upgrade back to a cannon). This makes actually sense, in that, of course, the castles don't fight on their own (and you can strip them of virtually all men, to send them somewhere), while an army of only artillery would have such a scarce standing power that making it crumble outright seems sensible (not sure on the fact that, this way, either you lose all your artillery or none of it). Clearly, you cannot say that a "cannon" is an "infrastructure", and saying the same thing for a "castle" is at least questionable, but I'm really not finding a term to define such "stuff", that has the charateristics of having no staying power of its own, while still being able to take part in battles, with other units (like the aaGun), or being completely useless for combat (like the factory). Keeping in mind that they can be living being too (like the "General" of Napoleonic Empires or the "Horse" of Feudal Japan), I really cannot find a term for them.