Milsimmmm!!!!

[Dirtbag]

On your short list below switching camo is rarely done, in a general warfare situation which is what a milsim is. That will lead to the elimination of those people by friendlies.

Destruction of assets are generally mission objectives with a "SIM" purpose. Although we have had laying of minefields and destruction of bridges, as options for teams.

Switching of factions /double agents are usually not worth doing, intelligence gathering is a recon/sniper role and should be tasked to those players.

The Merc/PMC thing just gets those guys killed by everyone after the 1st time they switch, although having them a asset that is added later could be interesting.


As to big sims, to run a 5 day sim becomes a business activity, it needs a solid dedicated staff to setup and run the event and clean up after. As well as the space, and space is the bigger issue here. You are looking at a large piece of property, that is privately owned. Crown land leases while theoretically available can be time consuming to get. And even if you do the entire boundary would have to be posted to prevent inadvertent non-player access.

I think it is mostly a case of player base we just don't have the numbers in any one area, I use a five to one so if i want 200 players I have to assume I have a base of 1000, with in reasonable driving distance say 10 hours.
That is pretty tough in most areas.

Originally Posted by mmmken

When I made this thread, I actually wanted to address the boundaries of milsims and not "kitting appropriately". Many of these boundaries are huge controversies on the AAR's.

Some examples would be:

- the destroying of unattended defensive assets to disable them;
- switching camo to avoid detection (as this happens in real warfare);
- counter-intelligence tactics: switching factions and double agents;
- a team signed up as PMC's switching factions that give the most benefit (or cash in real warfare);

These are just some of the many examples that continue to cause butt hurts in AAR's because they have not been formally addressed by game hosts. I think the definition of what a "milsim" is widely understood, but it is the extreme boundaries of a milsim that needs to be clarified.

[Grudge]

I had a team mate go to Eastwind. He had a great time. They didn't even put magazines in their weapons till day three. ( he spent the better part of day one digging in a telephone line)

Took him well over three months to put together all the right gear.

But he said it was the best experience he's had todate and will be going back.

The day to day life and the escalation of events are very tightly controled. The vehicles roles and objectives are very well defined.

This type of play is not for the person who gets bored after a couple of hours, nor the guy who wants lots of trigger time. Many of the people who went didn't even use 1 magazine over the entire 9 days. Lots to do but shooting was not one of them! (for the most part)

[HackD]

Originally Posted by mmmken

When I made this thread, I actually wanted to address the boundaries of milsims and not "kitting appropriately". Many of these boundaries are huge controversies on the AAR's.

Some examples would be:

- the destroying of unattended defensive assets to disable them;
- switching camo to avoid detection (as this happens in real warfare);
- counter-intelligence tactics: switching factions and double agents;
- a team signed up as PMC's switching factions that give the most benefit (or cash in real warfare);

These are just some of the many examples that continue to cause butt hurts in AAR's because they have not been formally addressed by game hosts. I think the definition of what a "milsim" is widely understood, but it is the extreme boundaries of a milsim that needs to be clarified.

- the destroying of unattended defensive assets to disable them;

Deliberately done, absolutely not. Break it, you bought it, if you don't compensate for your piss-poor respect of other's property, you should be black-balled in the community. Accidents do happen - it's up to game control to decide whether an accident, or on purpose and/or out of malice. This is an honor violation. maintenance of the honor principle is the tantamount goal to keep in mind, with airsoft. This is different from a benign disablement of a device or belonging in the course of game play.

- switching camo to avoid detection (as this happens in real warfare);
- counter-intelligence tactics: switching factions and double agents;

As in real life, this should carry consequences in the realm of game-play, if caught. In real life, imprisonment and death usually follows swiftly with the capture of a turn-coat, captured Opfor in wrong uniform, or espionage. A game time-out of sitting in the corner for an hour would be a sufficient equivalent, i'd think

- a team signed up as PMC's switching factions that give the most benefit (or cash in real warfare);

Allowable - I don't see a problem with this? It happens in real life situations, in 'soldier of fortune' scenarios.

All IMHO, of course.

[Zack The Ripper]

Just my 2¢…

I am originally from Alberta and have participated in one day milsim events with my father, a former tanker with the Strathconas, and these were all run predominantly by military personel. I was young at the time, but from my memory it was the closest experience to combat in airsoft that I've seen. Now granted that these were mostly military personel with previous combat experience that were participating in, and running the events, they were smoothly run, had multiple, but simple objectives, and took place in a variety of settings ranging from grass and woodland to mock urban sets. I'm no expert on running a milsim event, nor any airsoft event for that matter, but from what I have seen I think some true military involvement in the planning and even operation of the event is an invaluable asset. It allows the people running the event to have a different and professional take on how set objectives could or should be taken, allows for real world tactics to be infused into the match, and ultimately allows for the "this would never go down in real life" statements to be said. I know most airsoft enthusiasts are simple people looking for something to get their rocks off, but there are of course military personel present and participating in many events across the country. Although I may get flamed for this, but maybe some of these guys should talk to their COs and discuss the possibility of military involvement, whether heavily involved or simply for advisory reasons, with some of these milsim style events. Many senior military members who arent involved in airsoft or simply dont know of airsoft would be apprehensive in doing so, but there are many examples in the US and the UK of fully military run events that work well, are structured, and run without hazard. Not to be the goof that states the obvious, but the Scoutthedoggie channel on YouTube has a multitude of videos that display this perfectly, and while many of these videos are not displays of true milsim, they work, and they work well. Aaannyyways, I digress..

Ripper

[ViR]

Originally Posted by Janus

9 days would be long enough to use battlefield exhaustion as a weapon against the opponents. Think of it like trolling the enemy. You make sure they don't get ANY sleep and you run your team in shifts, bumping the enemy every 45 minutes. Demoralizing as fuck.

With a game THAT long, you could use things like that. It becomes more about leadership and strategy than who has the best AEG. I like it.

You are right. And GBBR would be an even better choice to really bother your enemy. If I had 9 days to spare I would go to this game, sounds awesome.

Regarding the points raised by mmmken:
Switching sides and camo should be clearly stated in the rules.
Last year I've specifically asked a host if I can wear a different camo, completely different from opposing teams, just to mess with the enemy and I got denied. But at the same game another team has done it (which pissed off a lot of people too).. So.. state the rules and dont change them.

Due to the lack of player base switching side and counter intel is not really needed because scenarios are not "big" enough.. 98% of the missions in Canadian milsims are: "Go to A, pick up object B, extract to C".. You dont need a spy. As Dirtbag said, sniper will just report that a force is going to direction of A, go and intercept them.
Same with PMCs, game are not big/complex/long enough to make commanders take risk of trusting PMCs and allying with them after a betrayal..

[mmmken]

Originally Posted by HackD

- the destroying of unattended defensive assets to disable them;

Deliberately done, absolutely not. Break it, you bought it, if you don't compensate for your piss-poor respect of other's property, you should be black-balled in the community. Accidents do happen - it's up to game control to decide whether an accident, or on purpose and/or out of malice. This is an honor violation. maintenance of the honor principle is the tantamount goal to keep in mind, with airsoft. This is different from a benign disablement of a device or belonging in the course of game play.

I can understand that if there was a way to disable the defensive device without damaging it, it would not be physically destroyed. However, in the case when an individual brings a device with no real way to disable it except by actual destruction - what is the proper call here when game control/hosts have not set ROE's for such a incident?

Examples of this:

- a sentry gun that autonomously targets and fires upon enemies;
- a floodlight to deny cover;
- the only way in to a building is locked or barricaded;
- a flying uav for recon;
- a eod bot or rcxd.

Is it right to take a UAV down by shooting at it? It's the only way to disable it but by shooting it, it'll probably be permanently damaged. Where do we draw the line? Unless these are prohibited by the game hosts, they should either have mechanisms for safe disabling or be allowed to be destroyed if brought to a game.

This is why I started this thread.

[testtube]

Strick camo rules if you don't have the camo buy it or don't show up.

Make sure the rules of ingagement are followed to the T and adhered to.

Have roe's issued to comand atleast 3 weeks before game so that comand knows whats going on and are able to set up comunication with there squads.

Having props is a big bonus.

I have played both Blacksheep milsim and Lion Claw orginized games both are different on how they run it but both are hardcore milsim events.

[McKee]

Milsim in Ontario anyway is just a term used to describe a persistent game that doesn't end in rounds like a skirmish. Everything else is opinion. Airsoft games are a spectrum from plinking to pure milsim, not a black and white option.


True milsim, taking the phrase "Military Simulation" to the logical extreme would require replicating the conditions of real military operations as best possible considering the constraints of the capabilities of airsoft guns. Most players want a middle ground between fun and realism, because pure Milsim is more like a reenactment. The conditions would have to be very controlled and would, frankly, not be much fun.

You have to be careful as to what you claim to be realistic however.. keep in mind airsoft games are usually in the neighborhood of 40-200 players. Thus making them platoon/company level operations. Most scenarios milsims create far exceed the scope of these operations.

[Janus]

Realistically speaking, a proper surveillance UAV is far outside of rifle range. One that would be used for airsoft would not be, but to simulate the "eyes in the sky" experience they should be considered out of bounds for firing at.

Very little that is troop carried would take one down in reality, but if some asshole wants to bring an airsoft Javelin to the field, if he can target it he should be able to "disable" it, at referee discretion. Of course, effectiveness relies completely on the cost of said "Javelin" vs UAV.

But that is just how I would handle it as a ref/organizer.

[HackD]

Originally Posted by Janus

Realistically speaking, a proper surveillance UAV is far outside of rifle range. One that would be used for airsoft would not be, but to simulate the "eyes in the sky" experience they should be considered out of bounds for firing at.

Very little that is troop carried would take one down in reality, but if some asshole wants to bring an airsoft Javelin to the field, if he can target it he should be able to "disable" it, at referee discretion. Of course, effectiveness relies completely on the cost of said "Javelin" vs UAV.

But that is just how I would handle it as a ref/organizer.

The other aspect of airsoft purposes UAV, is how persistent would it be in the sky? I would think that the range in-air between battery charges would be limited.

Even if it was a valid ROE to shoot it down, rather than taking the risk of pissing someone off that owns the thing, wouldn't it just be wise to go under cover, or delay an advance/movement until it runs out of juice in 15 or 20 minutes?

[mmmken]

Originally Posted by HackD

The other aspect of airsoft purposes UAV, is how persistent would it be in the sky? I would think that the range in-air between battery charges would be limited.

Even if it was a valid ROE to shoot it down, rather than taking the risk of pissing someone off that owns the thing, wouldn't it just be wise to go under cover, or delay an advance/movement until it runs out of juice in 15 or 20 minutes?

I used to have an AR.Drone that would run for about 12 minutes before it would be out of batteries. Flying it was a challenge against the winds.

A sentry gun was brought up in one of the game threads and several players expressed that they would not hesitate to kick it down to disable it. Having heard that, I have no doubts that the same group of individuals would have no qualms of shooting it down (which would be of a lesser "moral decision" over kicking something down).

Devices like these only enhance the game experience if deployed and managed properly, along with any other "milsim" shenanigans listed in this thread - as long as everyone is properly informed before the game starts. The ambiguity of whether not to shoot, or damage devices is what keeps these game enhancers from appearing at games.

I think a portion of the rules in game threads should address proper ROE's and game etiquette. I think these points have just as much importance to safety rules and probably even more so since we all know the rough FPS safe limits, proper eye protection, and the sort.

[m102404]

If the rules of a 'milsim' were generalized to:

"re. Props...do not bring anything you do not want to risk damage to"

"wear adequate protection as you need/see fit to beyond this/that eyewear"

"anyone you cannot confirm as a friend is potentially a foe"

"you will not do anything that will intentionally compromise your safety and the safety of others"

"game rules, mission parameters, restrictions and or allowances are subject to change at any time at the discretion of GC"

"the rules, mission parameters, restrictions and allowances that apply to one force may be different than those applied to another force and are at the sole discretion of the GC. Either force may not be privy to some or any of the information that another force has"

"if in doubt of an action, seek guidance from your C&C...and failing that GC. If GC gives their ok, then it is permitted for the purpose and intent you describe and is not to be assumed as a generalized alteration of the game parameters."

"the following specifics apply"....then going on to list dress requirements, fps, kill rules, dispute handlings, first aid, timings, etc...the standard stuff

...if the rules or game conditions were like that, would that be enough to give direction, to establish expectations, to sets things out in advance? Are they comprehensive enough without having to dissect everything in minutia? Does it allow enough latitudes, creativity and innovation without someone crying foul?

In all honesty...I suspect that it doesn't. I suspect that it wouldn't do one damn thing to change most of the AAR noise post events. Why.....because the ones that complain the loudest are the quietest when a solution is sought...and the same ones will not inject themselves to be part of a solution more so than to be first back to the table with post fact critique.

You're post said not to mention specifics...I haven't. I'm guessing that was a mod/admin directive.

[TheHappy1]

"re. Props...do not bring anything you do not want to risk damage to"

This one should be changed for: treat the props like if they were yours

Accidents happens, but when some people totaly agree to the idea of destroying a prop, it's simply disrespectful IMO.

[talon]

No, I think that "do not bring anything you do not want to risk damage to" is perfect. You have to expect that THINGS WILL HAPPEN. Regardless of intent to damage somebody else's equipment, it DOES happen. You shouldn't be using something to play with if you don't want to risk damage to it.

[m102404]

There's the difference though....some would destroy it, some wouldn't. The 'rule' doesn't work.

Flip it around to what I wrote and it does work because it addresses the scenario at hand.

I completely agree that it does not create a safe, secure and worry free environment to try out a new toy...but then perhaps the question becomes, "is the benefit of it worth the risk"? If the game goes off 100% perfectly....it's not damaged...is the potential failure of that happening worth it? Most hosts would say either what I wrote, or they'd say leave it at home.