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.
@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
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 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.
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.
@Cernel I also wish, for example, 1 spearman attacking 10 walls alone (beside the city) could instantly destroy them all (like the v5 aa guns), but them still turning into wall_breacheds, like in the case I would keep rolling the battle until destroying them all (this is just for making the game faster and for the theory, as in practice experienced players can just edit the situation, in similar cases).
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