I just recalled I actually had this problem in a map that I made. I didn't want to eliminate micro, but I didn't want players controlling Scourges, but to still have ownership of them.

//-----------------------------------------------------------------//
Trigger("Player 1, Player 2, Player 3, etc."){
Conditions:
Bring("Current Player", "Unit X", "Location", At least, 1);

Actions:
Comment("");
Preserve Trigger();
Give Units to Player("Current Player", "Player 12", "Unit X", All, "Location");
Give Units to Player("Player 12", "Current Player", "Unit X", All, "Location");
}
//-----------------------------------------------------------------//

Basically, whenever you click the unit, it is deselected because it is given to another player. However, in truth, the player never loses ownership of the unit for any amount of time, and the unit should in theory function as if no triggers were affecting it.
I will mention, though, that this map also had Order triggers firing after the give triggers. Also note, that when I used these triggers, the affected units never had to attack, only move. I know that they will keep moving to where they're ordered, but I cannot say that they will be able to hold their targeting.

Btw. thats exactly what i suggested in the first place:
They will not keep the target. P12 is neutral which cancels every attack command given to the unit.

There is a chance if you give the unit to a player that has the same alliances as the original player but I don't think it would keep its target.

Hm some idea I just had: What happens if you don't give the unit to another players but to himself? Is this action ignored? Would it deselect? What about orders?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 18 2007, 10:39 am by NudeRaider.

Well you didn't explain what you want to do with those triggers, but it seems you want when at least 2 units are at the same spot BOTH units are are ordered to move on by hypers.

Here's why that doesn't make sense at all:
1) Why both? That would mean they would always be ordered to move on as they will reach the next section together.
2) Why move order? What if moving is exactly the thing he wants to prevent? (For example in TOW moving 1 unit past enemy units to reach the end zone thus winning instead of winning by killing all opposition)
3) And what about groups that form when the 2 armies are fighting? Should those groups walk past each other until killed by the defense?!

No, sry... but this is no solution... at least not for what he asked. He wanted to eliminate micro, not move order units around the map when groups have formed.

[quote=NudeRaider][quote=ZugZugZealot]
Here's why that doesn't make sense at all:
1) Why both? That would mean they would always be ordered to move on as they will reach the next section together.
2) Why move order? What if moving is exactly the thing he wants to prevent? (For example in TOW moving 1 unit past enemy units to reach the end zone thus winning instead of winning by killing all opposition)
3) And what about groups that form when the 2 armies are fighting? Should those groups walk past each other until killed by the defense?!
quote]
Move is only spammed unti they reach the location, then switches back to standard "order attack," for whatever time it runs on. The only thing it would stop, is people doing unit recycling. For example, you your attack at their base, you can keep it from being a total loss by pulling them back. Until they're dead, they won't be able to be pulled back. The reason for move, is that if they try to pull them back, they will return to their current position where they should be at. In a maps like battlecraft and tug of war, theoretically, there should be no units along the way to where then fronts of the two sides collide. I'm not too big on the method since it's kind of messy, and is very location consuming.