@Frostion Ah I see. I'd need to see the error details to see why that's happening. Not sure if you have those but if so please post them.

@Cernel For WWII scenarios, and thinking about the way the 88s were used in reality (ignoring their use in the late-model panzers), it would be nice if: AA were treated like any other unit for purchase, movement, etc, except as below: on defense, AA acts as flak/air defense if any attacking aircraft are present, and as anti-tank/inf artillery if no aircraft are present, at start of defensive fire phase (SBR is just a special type of attack, so AA would be 'flak mode'). No input required from defending player. on offense, the attacking player has to specify the default mode of the AA guns (flak vs anti-tank) during combat movement, similar to how bombers have to select 'bomb vs attack' in most current maps (I have no idea how complex the coding would be for this, but existing bomber behavior shows that this is possible). If the Attacker wants some of each, move them in two separate moves, just like we do now with bombers attacking and bombing a single territory today. In 'flak mode', AA hits more rarely (1/6 in most maps), but cherry-picks aircraft only for casualties In 'anti-tank mode', AA behaves like Artillery in most maps, with better hit chance (say 2/6), but allows full defender-choice on casualties. If all defending aircraft are eliminated but attack still underway, then AA is in 'anti-tank' thereafter. So, in effect, AA would just be artillery with a special 'anti-air' mode available. Cost, cargo size, movement rates, and combat strengths would need to be balanced carefully. If a player wants to buy a bunch of AA rather than 'normal' artillery, then it should be an option, but come with a cost premium. I would think that a slightly higher cost and the fact that they would still count as a placement should prevent unreasonable AA unit spamming.

@Frostion The only way I can think if to achieve this (without having a unique Swiss Infantry unit) would be to create another hypothetical unit... call it "Swiss Advantage" (it could even be invisible) This unit could then just support the Swiss infantry units... and you could trigger it to be added and removed each turn based on where Swiss infantry meet the condition of being in a mountain terrain.

@Captain-Crunch snorts in agreement

@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

The value of unit strengths can also be affected by whether the game is meant to be played as Dice or Low Luck.

@wc_sumpton Thanks. You are correct, that works fine.

you should use notepad++

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.

@Stohrm What exactly is it you are trying to achieve?

@Stohrm Right on. I've made many a blurry eyed mistake myself

@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've detailed my perplexities about the current behaviour of the "requiresUnits" option in here: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1633/rework-requiresunits

@LaFayette

@redrum well not any simple solutions it appears. I see it's closed now as well. If one were to start from scratch, could you then make the canal thingy like a game property or something to that effect ? Then the old maps would still work as long as the new canal thing wasn't activated ? Or would there be conflicts between the two that wouldn't allow it ? I'm guessing starting from scratch would be labor intensive from a time standpoint as well ? At any rate, thanks for the link and reply. My fantasy of actually trying to learn how to do stuff like that has run into the reality of my small cranium

@redrum One way or another, if this can be confirmed, I would push an update to officialise it in pos2, unless a developer wants to do it himself. Logical or not, at least let it be known. If then, anything gets reworked, pos2 would be updated anyways.

Problem fixed (before I have seen @Cernels post) I removed the line with option name="players" completely from supportAttachment, and then it works fine. I guess it is not needed anyway as only humans have Arthur unit. Thx @Cernel and @wc_sumpton

@RogerCooper Here you can see in pure red all the pixels that were not pure black or white in your image. If you modified anything with the aim to have the utilities working, I suggest you go back and make purely black-and-white the original image (or post it here) (I use GIMP): [image: guadacanal(Cernel002).png]

@redrum thank you very much, now more or less figured it out and managed to integrate the relationship into my game.:grinning_cat_face: