Simple Trigger Help

Name

@Name Responses:

AI updates - Hard to say. I'll try to at least take a look at it this week or next week but would depend on the LoE.

Np, but what does LoE mean?

To have nations change relationship/alliance, I believe you'd need something like this:

Change the relationship based on some conditions:

    <attachment name="triggerAttachmentRussiansWarJapanese" attachTo="Russians" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
      <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachmentRussiansNeutralJapanTurn5plus"/>
      <option name="relationshipChange" value="Russians:Japanese:anyNeutral:War"/>
      <option name="notification" value="RUSSIANS_AT_WAR_WITH_JAPAN"/>
      <option name="when" value="before:russianPolitics"/>
    </attachment>

Have alliancesCanChainTogether if you want to will share both allies and enemies once they reach Allied or War:

    <attachment name="relationshipTypeAttachment" attachTo="Allied" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RelationshipTypeAttachment" type="relationship">
      <option name="archeType" value="allied"/>
      <option name="alliancesCanChainTogether" value="true"/>
    </attachment>

My issue is that I plan to have some players that will have fixed alliances (say "alliance leaders") for the whole game and others changing on conditions. If a changeable one gets to an alliance with a new "alliance leader", will alliancesCanChainTogether have them ally the alliance leader's allies and war their enemies, including past allies of the changeable player? Or do I have to include at least one past ally of the changeable as enemy? Or do I have to cover all possible combinations of player alliances in my triggers? I hope this time my description makes more sense.

A bit hard to follow what the issue is but you might have the player attachment inverted. I would recommend looking at TWW XML: https://github.com/triplea-maps/total_world_war/blob/master/map/games/Total_World_War_Dec1941_3.0.xml

I'll check those thanks.

For images, its really up to each map maker on what they use. TripleA primarily just asks that you don't use any profanity or controversial images. There is no way for us to check all your images and where you get them from so its up to you on what you are comfortable using in regards to copyright and other laws. Outside of some A&A images/terminology a long time ago, I haven't seen any issues around this.

Thanks again.

redrum

@Name

LoE - level of effort, ie. how long it would take me to implement
I believe alliancesCanChainTogether looks at the current allies/enemies of the nation its relationship changed with (nothing that isn't current). So in your example, if your changed the relationship of Aetolia and Seleucids to Allied then Aetolia would become allied with all the Seleucid Allies and go to war with all its enemies (and vice versa).

Name

@redrum said in Simple Trigger Help:

I believe alliancesCanChainTogether looks at the current allies/enemies of the nation its relationship changed with (nothing that isn't current). So in your example, if your changed the relationship of Aetolia and Seleucids to Allied then Aetolia would become allied with all the Seleucid Allies and go to war with all its enemies (and vice versa).

Nice that's desired and potentially saves a lot of work, but now I'm trying to understand if it covers all my cases.

If Macedon was allied to both of them but declares war on the Seleucids, Aetolia will stay with the Seleucid alliance right? Desired
If Aetolia makes peace with Rome, will the Seleucids also do the same? Undesired

I'm a little puzzled on this, if anyone can come up with/inform me of more scenarios, applications and potential issues with alliancesCanChainTogether it would be great.

beelee

@Name said in Simple Trigger Help:

Np, but what does LoE mean?

Lol I was just gonna look it up

Name

Btw trying to test the things discussed above I think I found a bug.

Corinth (Territory) belongs to Achaia, but has some of (Allied) Macedon's units starting there. When I have the following option enabled for the Allied relationshipTypeAttachment

<option name='canTakeOverOwnedTerritory' value='true'/>

and I move ALL of Macedon's troops to invade a neighbouring territory, Corinth ownership changes to Macedon.

I guess I need two allied types to fix this, one for true alliance and one for capturable vassals, but it still seems unintended/strange anyway.

@beelee said in Simple Trigger Help:

@Name said in Simple Trigger Help:

Np, but what does LoE mean?

Lol I was just gonna look it up

I did and the various acronym results made me ask

Cernel

@Name said in Simple Trigger Help:

Btw trying to test the things discussed above I think I found a bug.

Corinth (Territory) belongs to Achaia, but has some of (Allied) Macedon's units starting there. When I have the following option enabled for the Allied relationshipTypeAttachment

<option name='canTakeOverOwnedTerritory' value='true'/>

and I move ALL of Macedon's troops to invade a neighbouring territory, Corinth ownership changes to Macedon.

I guess I need two allied types to fix this, one for true alliance and one for capturable vassals, but it still seems unintended/strange anyway.

@beelee said in Simple Trigger Help:

@Name said in Simple Trigger Help:

Np, but what does LoE mean?

Lol I was just gonna look it up

I did and the various acronym results made me ask

This seems perfectly reasonable to me, if I understand correctly that the territory is taken over upon exiting like it would be upon entering, but only as long as at least one of the involved units is able to blitz.

Name

@Cernel

This seems perfectly reasonable to me, if I understand correctly that the territory is taken over upon exiting like it would be upon entering, but only as long as at least one of the involved units is able to blitz.

Seems to be the case, indeed there's a unit with blitz as well. But why is capture on exit intended?

Hepps

@Name LoE: \L-o-E abbreviation (2020) Language of origin; Nerd. HOBBY, ACTION 1 Lack of Energy. To be in a perpetual state of lethargy. 2 Limits of Espousal. The constraints placed on an individual based on the waning patience of a spouse.

redrum

@Name So glancing at the code this is how alliancesCanChainTogether works when a relationship is changed (in this order):

Leave Alliance: if I'm allied with a nation and a trigger changes that relationship to not allied then change all current allies to that new relationship
Alliances Make Peace: if I'm at war with a nation and a trigger changes that relationship to not at war then change all of my current allies to that new relationship with all of my former enemy's allies
Chain Allies: Make sure any allied nations are also allied with all of each other's allies
Chain Enemies: Make sure any allied nations are also at war with all of each other's enemies

If Macedon was allied to both of them (Seleucids & Aetolia?) but declares war on the Seleucids, Aetolia will stay with the Seleucid alliance right?
So I believe this would meet the first condition as they are essentially leaving their alliance (declaring war or any non-allied relationship with a current ally) and cause Macedon to declare war on both Seleucids and Aetolia who will both stay allied to each other.
If Aetolia makes peace with Rome, will the Seleucids also do the same?
I'm assuming this is indicating that both Aetolia and Seleucids are allied together and at war with Rome. If so then yes this meets condition 2 where Aetolia is essentially making peace for its entire alliance with Rome's entire alliance. If you didn't want the entire alliances to make peace then instead you would want to have Aetolia leave its alliance by declaring war or neutral relationship with Seleucids (become essentially its own alliance) and then make peace with Rome.

Name

@redrum said in Simple Trigger Help:

@Name So glancing at the code this is how alliancesCanChainTogether works when a relationship is changed (in this order):

Leave Alliance: if I'm allied with a nation and a trigger changes that relationship to not allied then change all current allies to that new relationship

Alliances Make Peace: if I'm at war with a nation and a trigger changes that relationship to not at war then change all of my current allies to that new relationship with all of my former enemy's allies

Chain Allies: Make sure any allied nations are also allied with all of each other's allies

Chain Enemies: Make sure any allied nations are also at war with all of each other's enemies

If Macedon was allied to both of them (Seleucids & Aetolia?) but declares war on the Seleucids, Aetolia will stay with the Seleucid alliance right?
So I believe this would meet the first condition as they are essentially leaving their alliance (declaring war or any non-allied relationship with a current ally) and cause Macedon to declare war on both Seleucids and Aetolia who will both stay allied to each other.

If Aetolia makes peace with Rome, will the Seleucids also do the same?
I'm assuming this is indicating that both Aetolia and Seleucids are allied together and at war with Rome. If so then yes this meets condition 2 where Aetolia is essentially making peace for its entire alliance with Rome's entire alliance. If you didn't want the entire alliances to make peace then instead you would want to have Aetolia leave its alliance by declaring war or neutral relationship with Seleucids (become essentially its own alliance) and then make peace with Rome.

Being as lazy as impacient I already started testing those and managed to figure some things out. I have both allies and enemies chained so could this explain differences on what you describe and what I found?

If I changed only one player's relationship, in the first example, Macedon would be forced back to alliance with the Seleucids, since the are both allied to Aetolia. So the way I'm doing it is make Macedon at war to both. Extra work and will need to be careful to include many conditions on similar following triggers, but I don't know how else to handle it.

So on the second example I guess I'd have to make Aetolia neutral (or war) every member of the Seleucid alliance on one trigger, and then on a second one have it peace Rome.

Cernel

@Name said in Simple Trigger Help:

@Cernel

This seems perfectly reasonable to me, if I understand correctly that the territory is taken over upon exiting like it would be upon entering, but only as long as at least one of the involved units is able to blitz.

Seems to be the case, indeed there's a unit with blitz as well. But why is capture on exit intended?

I don't know, but it seems to me being clearly the most reasonable behaviour. Why do you think that blitzing a territory you are already inside should be harder than blitzing a nearby one, for example? Because I assume you realize that, if you would not be able to blitz it upon exiting, then you would need to do 2 moves (going out, then back into) to blitz a territory you are in, as opposite to only 1 move for blitzing a territory you are next to.

However, I believe that:

The territory should not bet conquered upon exiting if all the units making this move are unable to blitz.
The territory should not bet conquered upon exiting if in it there are any hostile units that, under the rules, would block blitz.
The territory should also be conquered in case the units stay in it, without moving during the Combat Move phase, then the units should be unable to move, during the subsequent Non Combat Move phase (no matter if able to blitz).

Are the above three behaviours exactly what you are experiencing or not. If not, what not, and I would say that is where the bug (or bugs) would be.

@redrum What do you think about this?

redrum

@Name Interesting. I can only tell you what I think its supposed to do without seeing your XML. If what you describe is happening then the first condition of leaving the alliance isn't really working properly. The only thing I can think of without seeing them is you want to make sure that the "attachTo" is set to the player that is taking the action (in your first example Macedon since they are leaving the alliance).

@Cernel Hard to say without seeing the example. Once you get to changing relationships and having troops in existing territories, things get a bit questionable. I would probably argue that whenever Macedon's troops came to be in Corinth and they met the other conditions for taking it over, it should switch immediately. But because the way the engine only triggers these during combat move related to those territories, this behavior is probably a result of that.

Name

@redrum

I made sure I have the attach to the proper player and checked again.
Macedon starts in alliance with Achaia (Allied) and Macedonian_Allies (Vassal).
Then I run this trigger:

<attachment name="Social_War" attachTo="Achaia" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="Social_War_Condition"/>
	<option name="relationshipChange" value="Achaia:Macedon:any:War"/>
	<option name='notification' value='Social_War'/>			
	<option name="chance" value="6:6"/>
   </attachment>

Result:

Round: 1
Politics
Social War: Changing Relationship for Achaia and Macedon from Allied to War
Macedon and Achaia are joined together in an Vassal treaty

My relationship attachments.

	<!-- Relationships -->	
	<attachment name="relationshipTypeAttachment" attachTo="War" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RelationshipTypeAttachment" type="relationship">
	    	<option name="archeType" value="war"/>
		<option name='isDefaultWarPosition' value='true'/>
         </attachment>
         <attachment name="relationshipTypeAttachment" attachTo="Allied" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RelationshipTypeAttachment" type="relationship">
                     <option name="archeType" value="allied"/>
                     <option name="givesBackOriginalTerritories" value="true"/>
		 <option name='alliancesCanChainTogether' value='true'/>
             </attachment>		
             <attachment name="relationshipTypeAttachment" attachTo="Vassal" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RelationshipTypeAttachment" type="relationship">
                     <option name="archeType" value="allied"/>
		<option name='alliancesCanChainTogether' value='true'/>
		 <option name='canTakeOverOwnedTerritory' value='true'/>
                </attachment>							
                <attachment name="relationshipTypeAttachment" attachTo="Peace" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RelationshipTypeAttachment" type="relationship">
                     <option name="archeType" value="neutral"/>
                </attachment>

Maybe I need some extra property besides 'Alliances Can Chain Together? Maybe something "Chain Enemies/isDefaultWarPosition" related I failed to spot?

Or is isDefaultWarPosition the problem? I'm not sure I get what it means.
If true, any players that reach an alliance chaining relationship, will have their enemies who are not yet at war with, set to this relationship.

I can attach the XML if that helps.

wc_sumpton

@Name said in Simple Trigger Help:

Btw trying to test the things discussed above I think I found a bug.

Corinth (Territory) belongs to Achaia, but has some of (Allied) Macedon's units starting there. When I have the following option enabled for the Allied relationshipTypeAttachment

<option name='canTakeOverOwnedTerritory' value='true'/>

and I move ALL of Macedon's troops to invade a neighbouring territory, Corinth ownership changes to Macedon.

I guess I need two allied types to fix this, one for true alliance and one for capturable vassals, but it still seems unintended/strange anyway.

This sound right to me. If 'canTakeOverOwnedTerritory' is set 'true'. Then the Macedon's starting units have 'ownership' of Corinth, even though Corinth 'originalOwner' is set to Achaia. (PoS2 'By setting true, you can take over territories of an ally'). Since the Macedon's units were placed there at game start, it is my guess that the change didn't happen until after they moved, I don't think that attacking of another territory made the change, just the movement out of Corinth.

@Cernel Blitzing has nothing to do with this, since Achaia and Macedon are allies, and my guess is that 'canMoveLandUnitsOverOwnedLand' is set 'true' or 'default', so passage over Corinth is freely given.

Hope this is helpful.

Cheers...

redrum

@Name Can you try removing alliancesCanChainTogether from Vassal. I think you can only have 1 relationship type that has that set to true.

Cernel

@wc_sumpton said in Simple Trigger Help:

@Cernel Blitzing has nothing to do with this, since Achaia and Macedon are allies, and my guess is that 'canMoveLandUnitsOverOwnedLand' is set 'true' or 'default', so passage over Corinth is freely given.

Hope this is helpful.

Cheers...

Well, that's, of course, because in any original rulesets you can conquer only territories that are owned by enemies of yours. But in the moment you assign "canTakeOverOwnedTerritory" true to an ally, the matter becomes questionable, and what I would say, if asked to expand the ruleset to cover the case, is that if you cannot blitz, then you should not be able to take over more than one territory with the same unit (thus not taking over upon exiting, either (you should take over during Conduct Combat, if you don't move out)). However, you might also argue that if this is representing a peaceful annexation, then you should be able to move through such allies freely, not requiring blitzing, despite the fact that you are conquering their territories. However, from my point of view, that would rather need a totally additional rule, allowing you to do that during Non Combat Move (how can any combat movements be peaceful?), and, on top of that, a strong argument against this can be provided by the fact that in Global you even cannot blitz through friendly neutrals, you take over (and, currently, a neutral territory that allows you to entering behaves just like an allied territory, as a matter of entering and exiting it (see the Allied and Open Borders relationsips of Napoleonic Empires FFA)).
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/4685

My take is that in case of an ally with a "canTakeOverOwnedTerritory" true, the units owned by such player should be threated as friendly, of course, while the territories owned by such player should be fully threated as hostile, exactly just like regular enemy territories (except that their own units won't defend against you). I also believe you should take over all infrastructures (surely in case of factories, arguably, depending on rulesets, in case of aa guns, but TripleA doesn't currently support such a distinction), in such "allied" territories you capture: does that happen?

One way or another, I really wish all such cases would be indagated, sorted out, and documented in pos2. TripleA should really decide and document (in pos2) all behaviours that are not covered by the original rules, but may happen because of what the program actually allows. Just leaving them to what the engine happens to do is not great, as it requires the mapmaker going through a lot of testing to know what they need to know, and for getting a behaviour that is very unreliable (for example, if a developer addresses the bug I linked, maybe some behaviours that are related will change too, especially since that one is exactly about taking over the territory of a player that is not hostile).

Name

@redrum said in Simple Trigger Help:

@Name Can you try removing alliancesCanChainTogether from Vassal. I think you can only have 1 relationship type that has that set to true.

Doing that forces the Vassal (Macedonian_Allies) into Allied with Macedon at game start, since both are Allied with Achaia. Then, once the trigger runs, same result as before, since once again they are all in a chained relationship.

Round: 1
Politics
Social War: Changing Relationship for Achaia and Macedon from Allied to War
Macedon and Achaia are joined together in an Allied treaty

It works fine if I start with Achaia and Macedonian_Allies at Peace. Which I wouldn't mind much, since Vassals are ment as enhancements for the main playable (stronger/somewhat balanced) players and a way to add more political background without going for 40-50 players (might actually help me reduce the planned ~30). They wouldn't move troops to assist Achaia, only defend themselves, purchase and get captured by Macedon. But there are other occasions that more than 2 players will be in a real alliance. Unless I'm not getting something I'll have to relly on a little more complex triggers.

@Cernel @wc_sumpton I mainly thought it could be a bug since it only happed when I moved all the troops out. I get that you should capture allied territory under that rule. But wouldn't it be better to just capture it at start, without any movement. I don't know if it's hard to code, but visually it makes more sense.

RogerCooper

@Name I have been working on a system for randomizing alliances (and giving bonuses and penalties based upon your allies & enemies). Alliances can chain together can work, but make sure that you start from neutrality. You can ally with 2 powers that always hostile or create dummy powers which just work to ally with.

Name

@RogerCooper
Do you mean start with all factions at neutral, then set alliances with triggers?
Dummy powers you mean "empty" players, always at war with each other?

Edit:
How would I have a condition & trigger like the following fire only once? But not cancelled as effect. Nor as condition, since the condition might be used for other triggers as well.

<attachment name="Lyttian_War_Condition" attachTo="Macedon" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name='alliedPresenceTerritories' value='Carpathian Sea:Cretan Sea' count='1'/> 
	<option name='unitPresence' value='Pirate_Fleet:Fleet' count='2'/>		
</attachment>	

<attachment name="Lyttian_War" attachTo="Rhodos" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="Lyttian_War_Condition"/>
	<option name="relationshipChange" value="Rhodos:Macedon:any:War"/>
	<option name='notification' value='Social_War'/>			
	<option name="chance" value="6:6"/>
 </attachment>

wc_sumpton

@Name
Not sure if I am understanding your question. You want the condition and trigger to fire only once, even if the 'chance' fails ('6:6' should not fail). Then you could add:

   <option name="uses" value="1"/>

to the trigger.

If you mean to not fire 'Lyttian_War' after a successful 'chance' (even though 'chance' value might change). Then have the trigger set a 'switch' condition:

<attachment name="Lyttian_War_Switch" attachTo="Rhodos" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="switch" value="true"/>		
</attachment>

<attachment name="Lyttian_War" attachTo="Rhodos" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="Lyttian_War_Condition:Lyttian_War_Switch"/>
	<option name="relationshipChange" value="Rhodos:Macedon:any:War"/>
	<option name='notification' value='Social_War'/>			
	<option name="chance" value="6:6"/>
        <option name="players" value="Rhodos"/>
        <option name="playerAttachmentName" value="RulesAttachment" count="Lyttian_War_Switch"/>
        <option name="playerProperty" value="switch" count="false"/>
</attachment>

If you want the 'Lyttian_War_Condition' to always remain 'true' even if one or both of the Pirate_Fleet get removed, the set the switch/trigger on the condition.

Hope this helps.

Cheers...
P.S. I think you should consider adding a 'when' option to the triggers, to control when you want them to fire.