New Units

[Jittery]

Just a general inquiry in regards to requesting new units. What conditions have to be met

IE:

Commissioned??
Ordered??
Payed for awaiting construction??

The new English CV's have been added but are not constructed yet or for a large part payed for, i was wondering if we can request units from other nations that are in a similar status. Ordered/payed for or being constructed but not yet commissioned etc??

[Mike D]

I try to stay within these guidelines but there are always a few exceptions


Active between 1965-2015
Have a significant presence or effect on the balance of forces. (Example: introduction of 2 LCS vs. the introduction of one Iowa class BB. A single Iowa class BB can play a significant role in a conflict where the introduction of even 10 LCS would make little impact in the same conflict.)
Significant numbers. No singles unless they fit the above statement.
Have a strategic impact. This is the difference between the introduction of a new battle rifle to a conflict or the introduction of a new tank. While 10,000 new high-tec M4's can effect combat on a squad level the introduction of 10 M1A1 can end a conflict.
Has to be either a combatant, reserve/support unit or a potential legitimate target. That's why there will be no 24' sailboats, pleasure boats, cruse ships, balloons, carnival rides, Zeppelins, etc in NWP.
No hypothetical units, no Mig-41, F-16AT, EB-52, etc.
Units must have confirmed orders. DDG-1000 is an example, millions spent in R&D, congressional approval, memorandums signed with builders and then the whole project canceled. Even this is a problem, The RAH-66 Comanche helo was approved and money allocated and orders placed then the project canceled. In that case we put the RAH-66 in NWP based on the fact that contracts were being let for LIRP, then it was canceled and we had to remove the RAH-66.
Must be able to be effectively modeled in NWP. Example: the FC game engine does not model beam weapons, so even if lasers were introduced to the armed forces, like the ABL, I just can't make FC/NWP do it.

There is flexibility but I try to stay within these basic bounds.

[Pheonix]

I try to stay within these guidelines but there are always a few exceptions


Active between 1965-2015
Have a significant presence or effect on the balance of forces. (Example: introduction of 2 LCS vs. the introduction of one Iowa class BB. A single Iowa class BB can play a significant role in a conflict where the introduction of even 10 LCS would make little impact in the same conflict.)
Significant numbers. No singles unless they fit the above statement.
Have a strategic impact. This is the difference between the introduction of a new battle rifle to a conflict or the introduction of a new tank. While 10,000 new high-tec M4's can effect combat on a squad level the introduction of 10 M1A1 can end a conflict.
Has to be either a combatant, reserve/support unit or a potential legitimate target. That's why there will be no 24' sailboats, pleasure boats, cruse ships, balloons, carnival rides, Zeppelins, etc in NWP.
No hypothetical units, no Mig-41, F-16AT, EB-52, etc.
Units must have confirmed orders. DDG-1000 is an example, millions spent in R&D, congressional approval, memorandums signed with builders and then the whole project canceled. Even this is a problem, The RAH-66 Comanche helo was approved and money allocated and orders placed then the project canceled. In that case we put the RAH-66 in NWP based on the fact that contracts were being let for LIRP, then it was canceled and we had to remove the RAH-66.
Must be able to be effectively modeled in NWP. Example: the FC game engine does not model beam weapons, so even if lasers were introduced to the armed forces, like the ABL, I just can't make FC/NWP do it.

There is flexibility but I try to stay within these basic bounds.
DDG-1000 isn't cancelled. if what i've been reading is correct, the Zumwalt will begin construction sometime this year or next year.

[Mike D]

DDG-1000 isn't cancelled. if what i've been reading is correct, the Zumwalt will begin construction sometime this year or next year.

http://forums.navalwarfare.net/showthread.php?t=508

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/DDG072408.xml&headline=U.S.%20Navy%20Cancels%20DDG-1000%20Destroyer

Two hulls will be built and thats it, but with the current budget problems I'm doubting that even the two hulls will get built.