veterancy suggestion

[kondor]

Why should only unit who score hit get a chance for a veteran/elite status?
IMO it would be better that also the unit who is being fired upon (and missed) should get an equal chance for veteran status.
Just a minor tweak...

[GKar]

Not a bad idea, the chance for the defending unit should be lower though, like 2-3%. This could be a useful drawback to semi-cheesy tactics like firing with ANY unit on a sub in order to get the "fired upon" bonus for the real shot.

[christian brown]

I like GKar's solution, (2% is probably right on the money) it reflects kondor's desire for something that makes sense plus slightly helps dissuade "cheesy attacks" as described above. Can't really see this being implemented anytime soon, though.

[cinattra]

Yeah that's a good suggestion.  In the real world it's called "combat action."

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: GKar
Not a bad idea, the chance for the defending unit should be lower though, like 2-3%. This could be a useful drawback to semi-cheesy tactics like firing with ANY unit on a sub in order to get the "fired upon" bonus for the real shot.

I've found that the "fired on" evasion modifier as it now exists in AWD (as opposed to back in WAW) can almost always be considered to be the result of reconnaisance, so I don't really consider it cheesy.

For example, I can easily envision that fighters with no ASW capability could still support destroyers if they acted purely in a recon mode. Similarly air units could spot ships, but perhaps have very limited ability to actually do any damage to them.

I don't have any particular objection to the change, but since it is a released game and it has little real impact I'm not of the opinion it is worth changing. There are more important things that I haven't convinced Joel to change, like NMRC for Germany.

[lkendter]

ORIGINAL: GKar
I don't have any particular objection to the change, but since it is a released game and it has little real impact I'm not of the opinion it is worth changing. There are more important things that I haven't convinced Joel to change, like NMRC for Germany.

What is NMRC?

[Uncle_Joe]

NMRC = Non-Military Resource Consumption.
 
The US currently has a large proportion of her early resources being used as NMRC to represent the fact that the US was not on a full war footing. As her factory multipliers increase, the NMRC goes down. As game feature, it basically means that the Allies have to be concerned with keeping their resource flow up if they want their factories to function. Without the NMRC, there is far less need to keep the transport chains intact and thus can negate a large vulnerability to Uboats.
 
For Germany, currently in the early game she also gets far more resources than she can actually ever use. This means that things like minor neutral trade and the Russian gift are essentially meaningless (since once German's pool is full, the excess is lost anyways). The idea behind adding NMRC for Germany is that now the German player would be concerned about resources as well. Maintaining trade to Sweden would be important and attacking places like Greece or Norway for the resource value might be a valid strategy. Personally I think it would be huge improvement in the early game.
 
For a counter-balance, I'd like to see the Japanese A-bomb surrender contingent on actually being BOMBED by an A-bomb. This would probably give the Axis an extra turn or so and would balance out any slight loss Germany might suffer from early game NMRC. Alternatively, Germany could simply be given a tad more starting supplies and from then on she is more dependent on securing resources in the early game.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
For a counter-balance, I'd like to see the Japanese A-bomb surrender contingent on actually being BOMBED by an A-bomb.

Yes, these go well together. I will push hard for the next patch, but don't let me forget .