This is already possible, isn't? Can be done with characters like =P

You want it to promote upon upgrading? Or do you want the user to have the choice of upgrading by spending some metal vs promoting by letting the unit gain xp. If it is the latter, yes this should work.

Want to try something new with Merc in Classical Warfare AEA.  I havent tried yet, cause I figuted I would ask before nubbing and creating errors.  Can I write it so the Promotion is includeded in the upgrade?    <Upgrade>     <veteran>       <Entity>units/athen/merc_inf_archer_market_a</Entity>       <Tooltip>Rank up to veteran status.</Tooltip>       <Cost>         <metal>10</metal>       </Cost>       <Variant>upgrading</Variant>       <Time>10</Time>     </veteran>   </Upgrade>   <Promotion>     <Entity>units/athen/merc_inf_archer_market_a</Entity>   </Promotion>

Tiny precision, I wasn't trying to blame the process  I saw how it works well to generate hardened quality code, the time reviewer spend to read your (sometimes sh!ty) code is never to be taken granted --thanks by the way @Vantha, @phosit, @Stan` for the reviews on my PRs --. But simply the additional time to be spent on trying to get any feature into the game (again the 1-2 order of magnitude larger of work isn't a exaggeration, add to this waiting time) create a very real limit to what you can get done, even over a large time frame. Your suggestions to try to organize the collaboration although nice, can hardly solve this dilemma.  

@Atrik @wowgetoffyourcellphoneI want to touch on the recent discussion regarding our development workflows and how best to align our modding efforts with the vanilla codebase. I have read through both of your points and really appreciate the nuance around resource allocation and reviewer availability. The reality is that there are definitely valid differences between the timelines for mods versus full game integration, particularly when it comes to compliance and QA scrutiny. However, as we move forward on larger project deliverables, our goal is to streamline the process without sacrificing quality. I am proposing that we introduce weekly alignment sessions on Microsoft Teams to keep everyone synced with QA and product management. This would allow us to surface blockers earlier and ensure our technical direction remains aligned with the broader roadmap. Regarding the specific debate on mods versus pull requests, standardising our integration protocols can actually help bridge the gap you mentioned regarding reviewer availability. By centralising these reviews within a PR workflow, we create a more predictable pipeline for feedback and refinement before code enters the core system. This is a collective effort to improve how we scale our development operations. If we can establish these regular touchpoints and adopt a shared development standard, we should see fewer integration headaches  and faster cycles for feature releases. I would love to hear your feedback on how you think we can implement this in a way that respects the workflow differences you are facing while still moving us toward greater consistency.