Milsimmmm!!!!

[CR0M]

Everyone wants something different in their airsoft, and thats ok...

personally I like to make it as real as possible then substitute fun or easier ideas when and where possible/

camo has to be strict, not to the smallest detail, just clearly defined colors. (tan vs green, black vests vs the rest) Sure, in a real milsim you might have to analyze your target. But that isnt fun. Its like playing basketball with everyone wearing different jerseys.

it really helps when game control are the leaders of opposing sides, this way they can discuss issues during the game on the radio and change things on the fly, or make up objectives on the spot without the knowledge of anyone in the game. (ie an order gets sent to recon somewhere, when in reality the leader didnt want you to find something that you might have stumbled into too early)

ammo caps, some people hate them, but they are important, really cuts back on blind firing and friendly fire. This is the biggest part that separates milsim from skirmish. every shot counts. Personally the bests games Ive played happened to be the ones where I fired the least.

have a main objective, and have multiple ways to obtain this objective so that different tasks can be given to multiple groups. keeps everyone busy.

The player pool matters, but when you get a group of guys who are really motivated it will rub off on the usuall slackers and chairsofters enough to keep them in the game. When people stop caring it rubs off on everyone, and brings the mood down, dont do it.

but the most important is the venue. It has to be enabled to play in multiple ways. It has to be big, and have spots that can be taken from any direction in multiple of ways.

just a couple of things...

[SlowEddy]

I ran a eod / rcxd/ UGV /whatever you want to call it at rhino

I fully expected people to shoot at it - which is why i made it "BB--Proof"

it was pretty easy to disable in a non destructive way. all you had to do was flip it. every op-for who where able to do so was pretty cool with it too, and made funny gestures in the camera when they caught it. (I'm glad nobody mooned me, I was also expecting that to happen haha)

If I were to run a UAV I would also fully expect people to shoot at it. and I would probably also make it "BB--Proof"

in my opinion if it can effectively kill opponents and has absolutely no way for safe disabling it should not be used in game.

Originally Posted by mmmken

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.

[Zack The Ripper]

Completely agree on the comment made on camouflage. It's next to impossible to have everyone completely in sync with patterns (i.e. digital woodland, traditional woodland, OD, etc.). So people become nazi with this rule.

Real or low caps are always good for these types of matches as well. As said, it makes everyone very conscious of their rate of fire and can play in favor of certain players as many people will become apprehensive to get into large contacts. It tends to promote hit and run tactics making for long, grueling chess matches.

Originally Posted by CR0M

Everyone wants something different in their airsoft, and thats ok...

personally I like to make it as real as possible then substitute fun or easier ideas when and where possible/

camo has to be strict, not to the smallest detail, just clearly defined colors. (tan vs green, black vests vs the rest) Sure, in a real milsim you might have to analyze your target. But that isnt fun. Its like playing basketball with everyone wearing different jerseys.

it really helps when game control are the leaders of opposing sides, this way they can discuss issues during the game on the radio and change things on the fly, or make up objectives on the spot without the knowledge of anyone in the game. (ie an order gets sent to recon somewhere, when in reality the leader didnt want you to find something that you might have stumbled into too early)

ammo caps, some people hate them, but they are important, really cuts back on blind firing and friendly fire. This is the biggest part that separates milsim from skirmish. every shot counts. Personally the bests games Ive played happened to be the ones where I fired the least.

have a main objective, and have multiple ways to obtain this objective so that different tasks can be given to multiple groups. keeps everyone busy.

The player pool matters, but when you get a group of guys who are really motivated it will rub off on the usuall slackers and chairsofters enough to keep them in the game. When people stop caring it rubs off on everyone, and brings the mood down, dont do it.

but the most important is the venue. It has to be enabled to play in multiple ways. It has to be big, and have spots that can be taken from any direction in multiple of ways.

just a couple of things...

[Conker]

Originally Posted by CR0M

camo has to be strict, not to the smallest detail, just clearly defined colors. (tan vs green, black vests vs the rest) Sure, in a real milsim you might have to analyze your target. But that isnt fun. Its like playing basketball with everyone wearing different jerseys.

I'm on the opposite of you. Tan vs green is dumbing down way too much.

Requiring the player to identifty his target, and not shoot at first sight, makes it more challenging. And realistic. I do agree that having, say, woodland vs dpm is too hard. Although they are easy to identify from, what, 5m and less, it can't be expected to be identified easily from 15 meters the wood.

But having woodland vs flora, they are different enough that if you're careful, you'll be able to identify them. It's way different from basketball which relies heavily (although not exclusively) on speed of action to succeed.

[talon]

Another point in the camouflage debate is that identification will depend on the amount of communication happening between the team. In a smaller, properly operating team, you could have any number of people wearing the same camouflage, and it wouldn't matter due to team cohesion.

Obviously, for a larger milsim, some easier form of discrimination would be helpful, but I agree with Conker, in that identifying your targets before shooting should be something that is always practiced.

[CR0M]

the camo strickness is only a matter of opinion. It might be dumbing down, personally to me its one less thing to think about. Maybe tan vs green is a bad example, full bdu vs half and half works well too.

In smaller scale games its easier to know whos who, but with the bigger milsim games I think its a necessary evil IMO.

[whisper_kill]

Originally Posted by Conker

I'm on the opposite of you. Tan vs green is dumbing down way too much.

Requiring the player to identifty his target, and not shoot at first sight, makes it more challenging. And realistic. I do agree that having, say, woodland vs dpm is too hard. Although they are easy to identify from, what, 5m and less, it can't be expected to be identified easily from 15 meters the wood.

But having woodland vs flora, they are different enough that if you're careful, you'll be able to identify them. It's way different from basketball which relies heavily (although not exclusively) on speed of action to succeed.

When it comes to large scale MilSim events, tan vs green works well, it is simple enough for most people to understand and affordable enough to enforce.

[m102404]

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

When it comes to large scale MilSim events, tan vs green works well, it is simple enough for most people to understand and affordable enough to enforce.

For skirmishes/informal games...I completely agree. For larger MilSim's I disagree....reasons to follow below

Originally Posted by CR0M

the camo strickness is only a matter of opinion. It might be dumbing down, personally to me its one less thing to think about. Maybe tan vs green is a bad example, full bdu vs half and half works well too.

In smaller scale games its easier to know whos who, but with the bigger milsim games I think its a necessary evil IMO.

Originally Posted by Conker

I'm on the opposite of you. Tan vs green is dumbing down way too much.

Requiring the player to identifty his target, and not shoot at first sight, makes it more challenging. And realistic. I do agree that having, say, woodland vs dpm is too hard. Although they are easy to identify from, what, 5m and less, it can't be expected to be identified easily from 15 meters the wood.

But having woodland vs flora, they are different enough that if you're careful, you'll be able to identify them. It's way different from basketball which relies heavily (although not exclusively) on speed of action to succeed.

With the time, effort, travel, planning and what not that goes (or should go into) a nice MilSim...getting matching tops and bottoms is one of the least things that can be done by each individual.

There's all sorts of delineations with dress....some games are digital vs. analog, green vs tan, Nato vs. Bloc, etc...add to that civilian/merc/partisan/insurgent/etc... There's usually enough flexibility in there such that ANYONE can at a minimum dress themselves as perscribed in the game setup and fit into one force or the other.

And I've yet to see a game (might happen elsewhere) that says...it's got to be REAL issue stuff, real armour rigs, real IR strobes, real this or that. Which would obviously be quite tough for the masses. (Real gear/clothes just plain work better though....)

My #1 about this is...if it's set out by the host/GC, then what to wear becomes as much as a must do as it is to wear proper eyeprotection.

The rebuttals are:
- "I don't have the BDU's listed"...I challenge that in saying that most every game I've seen has very low cost options available. Woodland, OD Green, ACU, civilian clothes, etc...are abundant.
- "I can't afford to buy BDU's for this game"...I challenge that by saying that the expense of some of the clothing options is a minor part of "going to a milsim" when accounting everything else. And unlike BBs, food, drink, etc...BDUs are going to be reused over and over. Your not buying them for just this game...you're preparing yourself for every game down the road.
- "My team wears [blahblah] and it's not listed"...well, put it to the host. If they say..."Ok, didn't think of that one and I'll accomodate" then you're good. If they say..."Sorry, your ATACS FG doesn't fit in with what we're going for with our WW2 Milsim"...then re-evaluate or stay home.

IMO...Friend or Foe identification is one of the great things about MilSims. It sucks in the dark...and so you need to be even more coordinated with C&C, with sectors, with teamwork. Does it suck to shoot your own teammates? Yeah, it sure does. But when you and he take a sec to figure out why that happened...good things come out of it.

Originally Posted by ZackTheRipperC

Completely agree on the comment made on camouflage. It's next to impossible to have everyone completely in sync with patterns (i.e. digital woodland, traditional woodland, OD, etc.). So people become nazi with this rule.

Real or low caps are always good for these types of matches as well. As said, it makes everyone very conscious of their rate of fire and can play in favor of certain players as many people will become apprehensive to get into large contacts. It tends to promote hit and run tactics making for long, grueling chess matches.

IMO, There are two inherent issues with using AEG's for milsims:
- every gun is essentially the same (that's a broad generalization)
- there's too much ammo deployed

Every gun, for all intents and purposes, is as accurate, has the same range and shoots as hard as every other gun out there. There is no force multiplier by taking a M82 out vs a MP5K. A long gun is as good as a carbine. A pistol is as good as a SMG. Again...it's a generalization but differences are minor on the scale of it.

When there is no loadout cap, mag cap or ammo limits...the above point becomes magnified. Aside from pistols, semi-only and bolt guns...you end up with the scenario where everyone has a SAW/LMG. IMO, it's a huge detractor from one of the most thrilling aspects of a MilSim. Managing your resources, your squads resources, your entire forces resources adds a very stimulating layer to the game. Squads have to cycle in and out after 1-2 engagements to resupply...there are no protracted stand offs simply because no-one has the ammunition at hand to do so. When your mag has 30 you really need to pick your shots and move to better positions...'cause lobbing burst after burst at someone is not going to last long.

There are two main arguments against ammo caps/mag caps:
1. I won't get to shoot enough. And that's true...but it should work out that the quality of every shot you do take is higher. And if there are no limits...things tend to disolve into a skirmish
2. I'll have to go reload more often and I'll lose guys all the time. That's true if it's ill managed. When it's managed well it amplifies the good things of a Milsim. When guys get into the milsim mindset (as Drake very nicely described)...it becomes a pro vs. a con.

The last argument sometimes is:
- My gun is inaccurate and I need that extra ammo to make up for it. I think that's a hollow argument because everyone else is in that same boat and what's left to do is to move to a better spot. If you're working at the marginal effectiveness of your tools...then expect marginal results.

[CR0M]

The picky arguments shouldnt apply to milsims, if you dont have a the required camo or only have hicaps only, well then stick to skirmishes, because these milsims should require a certain level of effort. Take for instance the shallow lake game coming up, i dont have any tan gear and green is capped until tan gets more numbers, well, im ordering tan gear now.

If you dont have the money thats not an excuse, im not going to show up to a hockey game with just a pair of skates and huff and puff that i cant afford the required gear and call everyone elitest lol

[Trev140_0]

Interesting comments on the Milsim. That said on the Cammo issue, I have to add it depends on what field you are playing at. Our field you could be wearing a red "tu-tu" and you wont be easily identified. Radio communication is more key. As such I do not divide up teams with cammo as this might not be an even battle due to skill level etc. I use arm bands. Guys bitch, for the first few miuntes, but shortly after I often hear, "thank god for the arm band, I almost shot my own guy".


Look at this picture below. I am standing up wearing a purple golf shirt waiving.




To me, I am now focusing on doing events that are SIMPLE and I do my best to drill the rules through everyones heads. I spend a great deal of time going to the field the day before the game and seriously plan out the distance advantage, elevation, etc.

In addition, I now force each team to go to the other side and spend 15-20 minutes in a hold pattern after the rules are given. THEN the horn goes.
This allows time for the teams mates who in many case just met to settle down, stop talking about anything else but the objective. From the feedback I have been getting it has helped.

Is it "milsim" no. Do I see the faces of guys after the game ready to drop around 3pm?

Ya.

[Hunter424]

The Big issue with MilSim/ to real life combat is rules... IE this door is locked wish means you can NEVER USE this door, or the roof is out of bounds! (i understand this is for safety and control) But lets be real! If i need access to a building and the safest way is through the door "marked no entry by GC" In real life I WOULD BLOW THE DOOR!

We can never have true milsim because there are always to many restrictions that do not allow commanders to fully use there tactic's, equipment, or man power!!

Trust me on this if there is an object hindering my teams movement or a safer way into an objective I would use it..

Who has proper Kit... or are we aloud to use spy's are all small issues with the biggest ones being restriction of movement

[FoxhoundNB]

There's a lot more to milsim than blowing the door... Seriously, calm down there rambo. That's like saying it's not milsim because you can't call in airstrikes. There's lots of situations where you can't blow the door.

It's more about the attitudes, chain of command, communication, and restrictions on the weapons (ammo and rate of fire). The type of scenario also helps a lot.

[Conker]

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

When it comes to large scale MilSim events, tan vs green works well, it is simple enough for most people to understand and affordable enough to enforce.

Oh yes it works, but it's dumbing it down, and more often than not gives an unfair advantage to one of the teams.

As Tys said, having camo rules that require people to think about shooting also means that people need to communicate, plan, play in teams... If your squads are well coordinated, you'll know that that guy there is most likely a foe because none of your guys are supposed to be there.

[Hunter424]

Originally Posted by FoxhoundNB

There's a lot more to milsim than blowing the door... Seriously, calm down there rambo. That's like saying it's not milsim because you can't call in airstrikes. There's lots of situations where you can't blow the door.

It's more about the attitudes, chain of command, communication, and restrictions on the weapons (ammo and rate of fire). The type of scenario also helps a lot.

KK you are not getting what im saying...
The door is an example!!!
I'm not saying BLOW every door.
Im saying that the restriction's to movement is probably the BIGGEST
REAL LIFE VS MILSIM ISSUE!!!

TRUST ME IM QUITE AWARE ONE CAN"T SIMPLE GO AROUND WITH UNLIMITED C4 Charges BLOWING DOORS!!!


But I do agree with Restrictions to Weapons.
But I disagree with Comm's, CoC (chain of command) and attitudes!!
DO to the fact I feel most "MilSim" events I have participated in have those three elements in them!! Maby not Military standards but not to far off!!!

[FoxhoundNB]

Originally Posted by Hunter424

KK you are not getting what im saying...
The door is an example!!!
I'm not saying BLOW every door.
Im saying that the restriction's to movement is probably the BIGGEST
REAL LIFE VS MILSIM ISSUE!!!

TRUST ME IM QUITE AWARE ONE CAN"T SIMPLE GO AROUND WITH UNLIMITED C4 Charges BLOWING DOORS!!!


But I do agree with Restrictions to Weapons.
But I disagree with Comm's, CoC (chain of command) and attitudes!!
DO to the fact I feel most "MilSim" events I have participated in have those three elements in them!! Maby not Military standards but not to far off!!!

No I totally get what you're saying, So you're saying that Communications, having a working chain of command (if numbers necessitate) and the right attitude have nothing to do with the success of a milsim event?

Freedom of movement is such a minor part of the game; and guess what; that problem exists in real life too. The biggest obstacle to 'milsim' is that people know they can respawn after they die. Take that away and I suspect that the events would be a lot more deliberate and thought out and more milsim-ish. Being able to climb on roofs won't help anything, except give you 5 minutes of novelty cool before you never do it again.