UAF which countrys are in?

[Dwarf Floyd]

I had a look at the units! T3 Is 100% Syria Army, T5 Saudi Arabia Special forces! But which countrys are the other units?

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by Legatus Lucanus:

this is a seriouse question because i really dont know the answer.

if the nato is at war and there are combat missions with participation of multiple countries soldiers do they get standardized equipment from the nato or do they use the equipment they use in thair countries military?

I'm nitpicking here, but "NATO" stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", and member nations are from North America and Europe. The UAF might be a global partner of NATO, but they wouldn't be part of the actual organization, and most likely, would remain independent of the NATO command structure.

In other words, the UAF and US probably work toward a common goal as allies, but in CtA lore, I would imagine that they each have their own commanders who dicate just how closely the two forces work together (ranging from fighting side-by-side on the battlefield to supplying intel to whichever force is dominant in the AoO).

There would be very little actual exchange of equipment between the two sides -- that said, most modern small arms are chambered for the same cartridge (7.62x51mm for NATO or 5.45x39mm for former Soviet / WP nations) so that soldiers could reliably have a consistent supply of ammnunition, regardless of which specific rifle they were using.

[Badwolf66]

I think it's based on Turkey.

[Darth Revan]

Originally posted by DasaKamov:

Originally posted by Legatus Lucanus:

this is a seriouse question because i really dont know the answer.

if the nato is at war and there are combat missions with participation of multiple countries soldiers do they get standardized equipment from the nato or do they use the equipment they use in thair countries military?

I'm nitpicking here, but "NATO" stands for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", and member nations are from North America and Europe. The UAF might be a global partner of NATO, but they wouldn't be part of the actual organization, and most likely, would remain independent of the NATO command structure.

In other words, the UAF and US probably work toward a common goal as allies, but in CtA lore, I would imagine that they each have their own commanders who dicate just how closely the two forces work together (ranging from fighting side-by-side on the battlefield to supplying intel to whichever force is dominant in the AoO).

There would be very little actual exchange of equipment between the two sides -- that said, most modern small arms are chambered for the same cartridge (7.62x51mm for NATO or 5.45x39mm for former Soviet / WP nations) so that soldiers could reliably have a consistent supply of ammnunition, regardless of which specific rifle they were using.

that was not what i meant :) this question was in the context of me missundertanding what Shaftoe wrote.

i thought he means that the UAF should be more like the arabic version of the NATO and therfore i asked how the NATO handles this.

I know what the NATO is, i just dont know how it actually works if a german soldier for example get send to serve in NATO operations but i assume he keeps his equipement from germany which would make the mix of the equipment in the UAF in the context of the sentence above totally legit.

But on the other hand i also dont know if the NATO mixes the soldiers from different countries or if they remain in thair, for example, german regiment with their german equipment but i think the second one is the more likely one.

[DeltaDude]

Originally posted by Shaftoe:

I (myself) HOPE that Russians and Germans will follow SOON. Devs, don't take half a year or a year to do a work some college students can finish in a month or two. It really reflects poorly on you. Just give us the promised factions and do everything else afterwards. Please.

There is far more work than *a college student van finish in a month or two*

I understand from your other posts you may not be the most happy camper but let's not take constant jabs at myself and the rest of the dev team.

[Shaftoe]

Originally posted by DeltaDude:

Originally posted by Shaftoe:

I (myself) HOPE that Russians and Germans will follow SOON. Devs, don't take half a year or a year to do a work some college students can finish in a month or two. It really reflects poorly on you. Just give us the promised factions and do everything else afterwards. Please.

There is far more work than *a college student van finish in a month or two*

I understand from your other posts you may not be the most happy camper but let's not take constant jabs at myself and the rest of the dev team.

We're all waiting for you to release the thing, and supportively cheering. That's all I have to say.

[Romka94]

Originally posted by Shaftoe:

In reality, countries that make up the UAF are FULL of NATO surplus weapons and equipment. So, there really shouldn't be any problem with arming troops according to some standards, and not on "what you were happy to get" basis. They're not guerillas! They are official military forces united under a single banner!

UAF needs to become a lot more official looking and more standardized as a conseuqnce. Maybe, some squads should give preference to western weapons and some to eastern? Like... SpecOps from this country favor Soviet tech, and SpecOps from this country favor Western tech.

Just DO NOT MIX UAF SQUADS' WEAPONS.


It's the Rebels who should MIX EVERYTHING. It should be THEIR faction feature. Not UAF's.

Maybe, you are right, but there is real-life example of usage of both eastern and western weaponry by regular arab army-Iraq war with ISIS. There were plenty of photos with iraqi soldiers armed with both AKs and M16s. Maybe, developers take inspiration from it...

[Dwarf Floyd]

Originally posted by Romka94:

Originally posted by Shaftoe:

In reality, countries that make up the UAF are FULL of NATO surplus weapons and equipment. So, there really shouldn't be any problem with arming troops according to some standards, and not on "what you were happy to get" basis. They're not guerillas! They are official military forces united under a single banner!

UAF needs to become a lot more official looking and more standardized as a conseuqnce. Maybe, some squads should give preference to western weapons and some to eastern? Like... SpecOps from this country favor Soviet tech, and SpecOps from this country favor Western tech.

Just DO NOT MIX UAF SQUADS' WEAPONS.


It's the Rebels who should MIX EVERYTHING. It should be THEIR faction feature. Not UAF's.

Maybe, you are right, but there is real-life example of usage of both eastern and western weaponry by regular arab army-Iraq war with ISIS. There were plenty of photos with iraqi soldiers armed with both AKs and M16s. Maybe, developers take inspiration from it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_ISIL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian_Army
no more need to be said!

[Romka94]

Originally posted by Soldat-Hans:

Originally posted by Romka94:

Maybe, you are right, but there is real-life example of usage of both eastern and western weaponry by regular arab army-Iraq war with ISIS. There were plenty of photos with iraqi soldiers armed with both AKs and M16s. Maybe, developers take inspiration from it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_ISIL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian_Army
no more need to be said!

I dont understand what do you want to say.

[SLAM]

In a military that uses all types of weapons, I believe it is in the best interest of the force to allow their soldiers "user preference" when selecting the weapon they want to use as a battle rifle. So, to see a squad comprised of mixed weapons is easy to explain as that is the soldier's preferred weapon to use. I know that I wouldn't want my soldiers shooting a weapon that they are not comfortable with.

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by Slammedc:

In a military that uses all types of weapons, I believe it is in the best interest of the force to allow their soldiers "user preference" when selecting the weapon they want to use as a battle rifle.

Generally speaking, that's a bad way to do things -- soldiers (like most humans) are comfortable with what they're familiar with, and if given personal preference in all things, they might choose to stay with an older, obsolete weapon over a new, improved weapon simply because they are familiar with the older weapon -- never mind that, if you allowed each soldier to choose their favorite weapon, you might have six different weapons using 6 different ammunition cartridges in a single fireteam, and if one of the squad members runs out of ammunition in a pitched firefight, they have nothing left to throw at the enemy execpt rocks and insults. ;)

That's just one reason why most modern national militaries adapt standard weapons for mass-production. Theoretically, militaries also take soldier feedback into account when choosing general-purpose weapons. . .but as the initial L85A1 debacle in the UK showed us, sometimes that feedback is ignored for political / monetary reasons, unfortunately.