Milsim Section? Skirmish Section?

[Viking]

Originally Posted by Meat

Milsim vs Skirmishers is thrill of the hunt vs thrill of the kill.

Well said.

[alex_c_t]

not very fair during an event to have one team running with 300 rounds, and the other with 7 highcaps.

dont see why you couldnt do it, since milsimers are more likely to use tactics that actually work, as well as stick together as a team, covering each other, using fire and maneuver, while a skirmisher would just run in blasting and is less likely to attack as a team.

[TarToSuKkre]

Some games in Quebec are played with many teams. Dependently if you are a skirmisher or a milsimer, if you want to play a good or a bad guy, or you only want to play and almost do whatever you want, there is a team for you. The objectives are not the same for all the teams on the same side and the skirmishers objectives will make a difference in the scenario.

I'm not sure if what I wrote make sense so i'll stop here and write the rest later.

[spleen]

I've been working on a game to embrace both philosphies for a little while. It will be an experiment and we'll see how it works, if it ever gets off the ground. Yeah, I realize I'm being stupidly mysterious here, I just don't want to give away any of my ideas before I actually get a chance to try them.

WRT the titling system, IMHO, it will at some point degrade into a "you titled your game milsim, but we don't think it's milsim enough" thing. Anyone who has been to ASC for long should recognize that. Too many people who just like to take every oppportunity to criticize other people, too many folks who think that they're definition of things is the only correct one, and too many different standards of what would count as Milsim. What if you have ammo limits but allow hicaps, is that milsim? To some, yes, to some no...

[FOX_111]

At our games at Zone27, we try to make it fun for both milsimmers and skirmishers. That start with dresscode. Everytime I put a dresscode, I get flodded with people asking me if they can wear this and that. It's very hard to make up a scenario that will enable people to wear their favorite gear and still fit in the milsim optic.

Regarding the mission, we implement and strongly encurage roleplay. Our 2 last milsims where a blast because of it. The negociations where very tense. The milsimer can take part in the long range infiltration and special mission while the skirmisher can search and destroy. We use the bases and spawn point to allow the skirmishers the respawn quickly if they don't get the medic attention.

I think that the mejority of the players are pleased this way. The rest is their part to make. If we build a game designed to be a milsim but all the teams just hang around the bases and do nothing, that's their fault.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Meat

Milsimmers enjoy those rules that make the game 'long and boring' to people who enjoy engaging the enemy.

This is the main problem that arises, the skirmishers feel ripped off because the action is intermittent, many times inconclusive, and thus 'boring'. I don't try and force milsim down anyone's throat because you either enjoy it, or you don't. Nor would I subject either party to the other's gaming style if they are mutually exclusive, but why try and build bridges between what is essentially lacross and hockey? I mean they both are played with sticks and there are nets and you have to score, but, that does not mean hockey players would prefer to play lacross or vice versa. I see them as two different sports almost.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Nor would I subject either party to the other's gaming style if they are mutually exclusive, but why try and build bridges between what is essentially lacross and hockey? I mean they both are played with sticks and there are nets and you have to score, but, that does not mean hockey players would prefer to play lacross or vice versa. I see them as two different sports almost.

That's not a particularly good analogy, lacross and hockey are differentiated by gameplay, milsim and skirmish are differentiated by complexity. Like floor hockey and ice hockey, maybe. IMO, the difference between milsim and skirmish is more like wars and battles, but they're still just different ends of a spectrum, based on varying complexity, but still existing as one sport.

So I don't understand why milsim and skirmish would be black and white categories or even separate categories. Even within milsim there are differences in extremes, as it's already been point out. I might enjoy the idea of scenarios, ammo restriction, LARPing and dressing for the part as best as I could, but what if I don't have the money to invest in sufficiently authentic gears, want to use precisely what fits in that era or want to wait 5 hours between combat? "Too bad, you're a candy milsimer, go away"? To which the response would be, "you're not playing airsoft, you're just reinacting the [whichever] war, go back to Texas"? There are no definitive collection of traits enforced by some central airsoft authority on what qualifies as a milsim, only individual opinions. I don't see why that has to change or emphasized beyond what it already is.

Besides, skirmish is essentially a part of milsim, it's part part where you know, we fight. Skirmishing concentrates the combative portion of the sport but adds little else that would make it a wholey different and exclusive sport from milsim. You go to a skirmish for simpler fights, you go to a milsim for more complex fights. Some skirmish have more restrictions, some milsims are looser on restrictions. It's because they're just different points on the same line. Unless we want to clutter the sport with useless additional categorizations for slight variance in gameplay and create unnecessary social divisions (which categorizing players WILL do), we all just play airsoft; apply skirmish and milsim prefix according to individual taste while actually basing interest in playing a game on the rules given for that particular game.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by The Saint

That's not a particularly good analogy, lacross and hockey are differentiated by gameplay, milsim and skirmish are differentiated by complexity.

There is a lot more that separates milsim from skirmishing other than complexity. It has to do with longer waiting times for action - a willingness to wait and stalk for long periods of time, of mimicking real world operations and operators, employing their methods as close as one can, its about reduced ammo loadouts to real steel levels (sometimes), and its also about operating in a unit and taking and giving orders. There is a lot more to milsim than just the complexity of a game. I've seen plenty of complex skirmishes too (and hosted them as well) - complexity is not the sole domain of milsimers. Calling skirmishing simple by extention would be wrong.

What separates the two that makes lacross and hockey good examples is the nature of the primary gameplay - there are significant differences that make the sport appeal to either one person or another. And there are those who are happy with both. But you would not see one team playing lacross and the other hockey on the same field/ice rink.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

What about this,

a 24 hour op,

one team in defense, one in offense

game starts at sundown, 10 hours of Milsim, patroling to probe the defense,
defense setting out ambush patrols, and listening points to defend their position and keep the offense from figuring out their defensive plan.

Next day, all out assault on the defensive team ( reinforced with "skirmishers")
by the offensive team, reinforced with "skirmishers" based on the intel gathered by the patrols over night.

Run an assault on a prepared position game,
then counterattack against a hasty defense.

Then finally.. retreat in order

So, two games really.. one "hardcore" night op Milsim, followed by loads of shooting, and run and gun, but linked and enough fun for everyone?

[FOX_111]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

What about this,

a 24 hour op,

one team in defense, one in offense

game starts at sundown, 10 hours of Milsim, patroling to probe the defense,
defense setting out ambush patrols, and listening points to defend their position and keep the offense from figuring out their defensive plan.

Next day, all out assault on the defensive team ( reinforced with "skirmishers")
by the offensive team, reinforced with "skirmishers" based on the intel gathered by the patrols over night.

Run an assault on a prepared position game,
then counterattack against a hasty defense.

Then finally.. retreat in order

So, two games really.. one "hardcore" night op Milsim, followed by loads of shooting, and run and gun, but linked and enough fun for everyone?

It's hard enough to have people showing on time one day and staying for the whole time, especially a 24h game that involve all night action. Having a 2 part game that depend on the first part to be completed, it's just to risky of failure.

I see only 2 solution:

-Make games that will acomodate both style of play
-Don't come to milsims if you don't like it, same for skirmishs.
If you come anyway, don't complain and follow the teams.

Paintball got segregation: recball and speedball. Let's not fall into this shit too.

[Shutter]

Originally Posted by The Saint

I might enjoy the idea of scenarios, ammo restriction, LARPing and dressing for the part as best as I could, but what if I don't have the money to invest in sufficiently authentic gears, want to use precisely what fits in that era or want to wait 5 hours between combat?

I couldn't agree with this more, as it perfectly describes my situation. I'm in the slow process of purchasing combat gear for myself, and money is restricted, if not nessicarily tight for me.

I'm a SWAT tactical style junkie myself, so all my gear I'll be buying will mirror that. My arsenal, such as it is, consists of an M9 and my M4 should be here soon. So far I play exclusively at the indoor arena here in Winnipeg called XTreme Tactics. In this setting its all about CQB.

At the same time, I'd love to spend a day or two out in the field on an operation, but theres no concievable way that I'm going to go out and purchase a full set of field cammo and a second vest system because the olive drab pants and shirt I picked up for $30 contrast with my black vest rig. And that doesn't cut it with the guy who broke up with his girlfriend so he could spend more time on his ghillie suit, so I don't get to play? Where do people draw the line?

And where do the SWAT wannabies fit in between the MilSim'rs and the Skirmishers?

[FOX_111]

And where do the SWAT wannabies fit in between the MilSim'rs and the Skirmishers?

Black BDU are good inside. You can wear it outside if you want or buy a cheap surplus BDU of your choice. Some old OD BDU come around 40$ for a complete kit.

Those things are never waisted. I myself have a couple of BDU, even if I don't play with them often. Im not full of money, but I just buy step by step. When you start playing airsoft and your are not rich, you play with compromises.

When I plan a game, I try to keep in mind that some people don't have all the BDUs, that's why I always do teams that acomodate most of them. Terrorist usually wear mismached BDUs, so it's easyer for those that don't have the complete kit required for the other teams. I think this way of planning is common elswere in canada.

[Nuck]

Originally Posted by FOX_111

-Don't come to milsims if you don't like it, same for skirmishs.
If you come anyway, don't complain and follow the teams.
.

thats the best advice right there folks.



If you sign up for a game, then bitch about the style of gameplay, then you're an idiot for signing up in the first place when you KNEW you werent gonna have a good time, plain and simple.


would you go out and by tickets for an Eminem concert if you despise rap?
Hell no.
Furthermore, would you buy the tickets, go to the concert, then proceed to bitch about rap sucking ass?

why argue about it?
If you dont like the type of game, dont go, simple as that.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

There is a lot more that separates milsim from skirmishing other than complexity. It has to do with longer waiting times for action - a willingness to wait and stalk for long periods of time, of mimicking real world operations and operators, employing their methods as close as one can, its about reduced ammo loadouts to real steel levels (sometimes), and its also about operating in a unit and taking and giving orders. There is a lot more to milsim than just the complexity of a game. I've seen plenty of complex skirmishes too (and hosted them as well) - complexity is not the sole domain of milsimers. Calling skirmishing simple by extention would be wrong.

But how is that not a reflection of the game's complexity, where complexity means the amount of demands and restrictions placed on the players? How are ammo restrictions, lower rate of combat encounters and other modifiers not merely enhancements for the main aspect of airsofting, that of exchanging plastic BBs from realistic looking weapons? Calling skirmishing simpler is not meant to be insulting, it merely points out the fact that it's regarded as skirmishing is because it doesn't have as many demands as what is regarded as milsim.

I think people forget that airsoft, whether you call what you're doing skirmishing or milsimming are both inherently the same thing: simulating real life gun battles. We're playing around with airsoft weapons instead of paint markers or laser guns because we all want to fight like real soldiers, cops, etc. Airsoft is made for the purpose of letting people pretend gunfight. And since people often use real life combat techniques and (some) chain-of-command in skirmishing, how would they not be doing essentially "military simulation"? Are uniforms, airtight command structure and ammo restrictions really what makes or breaks a milsim? And that common purpose and origin, if nothing else, shows that skirmishing and milsimming are both the same combat simulation sport. The words "skirmish" and "milsim" are adjectives that describe how far a game goes in its immitation of real life, not two different sports.

[Viking]

My original request was that moderators could possibly revisit the structure of the games section to give each group it's own voice. Moderators have replied and have been very fair. Period.

There are indeed large, obvious differences between the two styles, and I'm comforted in knowing that there are those in the community that see it as well. No one needs to hug and apologize here; MilSim and Skirmishing are different and it will stay seperated. What's the big problem? Why the need to try and unite the styles? It's simply the way of things. Let it go.

In regards to the title system, if the masses don't like it and nothing changes, then that's fine too; life goes on. It was an idea and nothing more. No hard feelings whatsoever.