Simple Trigger Help

[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):

1. 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
2. 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
3. Chain Allies: Make sure any allied nations are also allied with all of each other's allies
4. 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):

1. 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
2. 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
3. Chain Allies: Make sure any allied nations are also allied with all of each other's allies
4. 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.

[wc_sumpton]

@Cernel
I am sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I believe the problem is with 'canMoveLandUnitsOverOwnedLand', it should not stop the entering of a territory, just continued movement over/through territories.

Cheers...

[Name]

@wc_sumpton
What I mean is I wanted the trigger to fire just once, but the condition to stay for potential use for other triggers.

From what I've understood reading XOB, 1 use makes the trigger fire once per turn, not what I'm looking for.
I'm confused on switch.

    <option name="playerProperty" value="switch" count="false"/>

Means no more rolls after succcess?

and

<option name="switch" value="true"/>	

Means condition always true after the first time it was valid?

Since the triggers I'm using so far deal with relationship changes, I found a workaround, setting the condition to work depending on current relationship, besides other things.

Another question on triggers with chances. If the condition remains active, but the trigger isn't successful yet, will it fire 2 times on the next turn?

Say we've got this:

    <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="1:6"/>
 </attachment>

If the Fleets are present on the next turn, and the trigger didn't succeed on the first, how many times will the trigger roll? Same scenario but the fleets not there anymore?

If we use switch on the condition, how many rolls when the trigger fires?

[redrum]

@Name Interesting. You may have found a bug then in alliancesCanChainTogether. As if Macedon, Achaia, and Macedonian_Allies are all allied and then Achaia declares war on Macedon, it should also declare war on Macedonian_Allies. At this point, I would have to do some tests as not the many maps use this property.

I'll look to set up this scenario with alliancesCanChainTogether and see if I see the same behavior you do:

1. Player A, B, C are all Allied
2. Player A declares War on Player B
3. Result should be that Player A is then at War with Player B & C and Player B & C are still Allied

[wc_sumpton]

@Name
'uses' is the number of time a condition/trigger can be called.

   <option name="uses" value="4"/>

Means that the condition/trigger can only be call 4 times, it can be call 4 times in 1 turn, or take all game to make the 4 calls. After the 4th call, then the trigger can not be used any more for the rest of the game.

The 'switch' is a condition option. In my above example I created a condition called 'Lyttian_War_Switch' which contained '<option name="switch" value="true"/>'. So this condition is always true for any condition/trigger that uses it.

Then I changed the 'conditions' for Lyttian_War trigger and add a check for Lyttian_War_Switch:

   <option name="conditions" value="Lyttian_War_Condition:Lyttian_War_Switch"/>

So the trigger will only fire when both conditions are true. With a chance of 6 or less out of 6 (always true, you will always get a 6 or less, when the highest value is 6) then the relationship between Rhodos and Mecedon will change to war. Then I changed the Lyttian_War_Switch condition to false. The next three lines are taken together:

        <option name="players" value="Rhodos"/> <!-- not needed because the trigger is attached to this player -->
        <option name="playerAttachmentName" value="RulesAttachment" count="Lyttian_War_Switch"/> <!-- changing a player RulesAttachment name 'Lyttian_War_Switch' -->
        <option name="playerProperty" value="switch" count="false"/> <!-- changing the 'switch' value from true to false for what uses this condition -->

Hopes this helps what I was trying to say.

@Name said in Simple Trigger Help:

If we use switch on the condition, how many rolls when the trigger fires?

Again it is hard to understand what you are asking, the trigger will only roll once every time it fires. How may times will this trigger fire per turn is hard to say with out a 'when'.

Cheers...

[Name]

@redrum
Could it be cause I have used this isDefaultWarPosition (without really being sure what it does )?
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.

@wc_sumpton I'll study what you said and open a specific thread with any remaining related questions soon.