Milsim Section? Skirmish Section?

[NewBie]

The Saint have you been to a milsim game before?

[Bravo One-Six]

Originally Posted by alex_c_t

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.

It could just be me. I just tend to think the things that appeal to milsimmers are the same things that don't appeal to skirmishers. I'm asking the US forces for my event to sleep under ponchos and in bunkers even if it's fucking pouring out. That's a LOT to ask of someone who just wants to come out and shoot things.

[zapplez]

Just for an example, there was a small Muskoka game I attended earlier this summer.

It was a milsim event, and with a fairly low attendance, not much was expected.

But dammit if it wasnt one of the most fun times ive ever had. Most of the day for me was hiking around in the forest with scarecrow well trying to find our way and avoid our enemies. We ended up in only 2 major firefights, most members of the event didnt fire more then 150 rounds, even though the event lasted several hours....

Now , I know for some people, this sounds like the more boring thing in the world, but for some, its the only way to go.

In conclusion, some people can handle keep their finger off the trigger and only the trees for entertainment, some people just cant.

[lt_poncho]

Originally Posted by NewBie

The Saint have you been to a milsim game before?

NewBie - have you?

Airsoft has become so diversified to the point where every facet and niche has an outlet - much to the degree of the music industry these days. I'm sure somewhere there's a civil war 24 hour event where you sit around and starve in blood soaked fields waiting for the next battle, perhaps dining on horse.

Seriously, we as a community have somewhat of an identity complex. But ironically that's how it works, because we all put into it what we contribute. Lately - there's been a huge variation on that contribution. Is a MilSim just that because it's 24 hours long, has the word 'Operation:' in it's event name, and has everyone part of a fictional story ultimately fighting whooops or should I say skirmishing...over a scripted or set objective?

Whatever way we lean towards, ideally we got to realize that one man's MilSim is another man's skirmish, but we still got to take that 'other mans' perspective into consideration. We're all in the same boat, just on different ends. You should be able to walk freely around the boat no matter what side your on and enjoy what the other has to offer. That's what makes this hobby/sport/community so dynamic - instead of telling you all about how great it is - fucking walk over there and walk in their shoes (boots) and see/smell/taste first hand what it's about.

At the end of the day I think we'd all be a lot more accomodating.

I would like to see a MilSim section on the board, much to the degree of the 'Themed Airsoft' section - or perhaps fleshing out that section to make it more accomodating (there's that word again) to those who want to see more depth. [Much to the same effect as the awesome conversations that were brewing at milsimairsoft.com - I miss those]

[REXTER]

To me, there is nothing better than a mil-sim game. Viking, Scarcrow, Meat, Ponch, you guys hit it! No other way to explain it. Nothing beats being out in the field all day/night on a single load of ammo, getting eaten by bugs, burned by the heat, soaked by the rain and eating sand covered green candies for two days. That's what I thought airsoft is all about? I find there is more of a challenge carrying a restrictive load-out, knowing I have to be strategic and I have to rely on team mates to get the job done.

However, as being one of the organizers at the LZ here in Ottawa, I don't have the time and energy to run all out mil-sim games every two weeks. I try and do one a month, like Op Razor Cut 2 and Op Red Flag next month. So for every game day, I try and do a small senario, if it lasts all day, cool. If not, we do some smaller senario/skirmish style games later in the day. Although our smaller games still have an objective of somesort and we ask players to still follow, "mil-sim rules" like realistic loadouts, etc... So I think there is a place for both styles.

As far as knowing which one is a mil-sim. I think the idea of calling it an "operation" or labelling it as a mil-sim style game is the easiest.

Just my .02

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by The Saint

So I don't understand why milsim and skirmish would be black and white categories or even separate categories.

I do. Guess thats where we see things differently. In all seriousness, please feel free to come up to one of the public Muskoka Wolfpack events and I'd be happy to personally have you along in one of my squads on an milsim Op and I will illustrate the differences as I see them throughout the game.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

I do. Guess thats where we see things differently. In all seriousness, please feel free to come up to one of the public Muskoka Wolfpack events and I'd be happy to personally have you along in one of my squads on an milsim Op and I will illustrate the differences as I see them throughout the game.

If I can, I will. If I'm to be proven wrong, might as do it while having fun.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by The Saint

If I can, I will. If I'm to be proven wrong, might as do it while having fun.

If you're the outdoor type and can stand bugs, swamps and layups that last more than a half hour, then you'll have a blast!

As zapplez said, some of the best gaming we've had has been under 10 people, sneaking around one another trying to find, fix and kill. When the firefights happen they are usually fast, short and utterly vicious - its a ball. Its hard to go back to the cubical monday morning and look at the watercooler crowd without thinking about the kind of damage you could do to a group packed that close together...

meh
if milsim is only ammo limits then who cares. Honestly, I never gave a crap if the guy who beat me had more ammo then I do(ha! like thats ever gonna happen...wait, no more Cmag). Lets say tommorow the world breaks out fighting....some will run around with 300 rounds, while others, like myself, will carry 15 Cmags on my back and have a donkey pulling a wagon loaded with M249s and buckets of ammo...

is milsim:
1 bullet=1 bb
or
1 bullet = how many bbs it takes to do to an enemy behind a bush what a single bullet can do
?

far as im concrened, if milsim means making things more real-world; ammo limits hinder that.
but airsoft can only be so milsim...i mean, our guns have disgusting range, and no accuracy...I played milsim games and seen the enemy walking in a field and neither of us can engage because we are like 300 feet away...

IMHO, milsim is about the game being unpredicatble...Not knowing the FPS, team sizes, etc. Id love a game where I didnt know exactly how much ammo the enemy has. The more dynamic and mixed the game is, the more milsim it is to me.

[NewBie]

Originally Posted by lt_poncho

NewBie - have you?

I would like to believe so !

[Bigmatty]

Let us not forget that the MilSim aspect is not only with the gameplay, its also with the actual organisation of the MilSim.

-Well thought out and detailed orders for the teams prior to game day.

-Objectives that are both dynamic and static in nature, depending on how the game is progressing.

-Mini-Objectives for teams incase they are in a rut or have too much down time on their hands becasue they ahvae completed the objectives up to that point...

ETC......

I am sure you get my drift.....

[gandar]

Originally Posted by Droc

IMHO, milsim is about the game being unpredicatble...Not knowing the FPS, team sizes, etc. Id love a game where I didnt know exactly how much ammo the enemy has. The more dynamic and mixed the game is, the more milsim it is to me.

That would be cool, extra work in a sense but cool, just have a game post where you say which team you're on and all the info regarding it is given via PM after you decide.

Originally Posted by NewBie

I would like to believe so !

I don't define a Milsim event as exclusively a 24 hour operation. A Milsim event is just that - Military Simulation. A Simulation might be 24 hours, or it might be a single game day. It might be low-caps at 30 rounds, or not.

It's the game organization and the mindset of the players that makes it or breaks it. Under this definition, Newbie has been to plenty of Milsim games, although I'm sure he's been to very few 24-hour Milsim operations.

What I'd really like to see is more Milsim events that are operated as "team versus team", where Milsim teams can ...dare I say it....compete against one another. No more "JTF vs the US Rangers in the Arctic Circle, fighting for control of Canada's polar bears", but rather Team X operating on their home field and defending it from Team Y, with a "territorial record" kept of who has "conquered" which areas....this only a very small part of the idea. It could go on indefinetely, until all "contested areas" are either won or lost. You never lose the use of your fields of course, it's just a method of "scoring". "Owning" more territory could permit you to field more troops, etc. Just an idea of course...and it doesnt have to necesarily be limited to the organised milsim teams. Red VS Blue as it were, with each side consisting of a coalition of teams and or individuals.

I've never had a fellow Milsimer complain when a well executed plan led to his or her "destruction". Likewise, I don't tend to complain if my seemingly well-executed plan falls to pieces because someone on the other side devised and executed a counter-maneuver that I was unprepared for. Milsim teams playing with or in opposition to each other makes for a better (and evolving) milsim experience for those who enjoy it.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by MadMorbius

Likewise, I don't tend to complain if my seemingly well-executed plan falls to pieces because someone on the other side devised and executed a counter-maneuver that I was unprepared for. Milsim teams playing with or in opposition to each other makes for a better (and evolving) milsim experience for those who enjoy it.

Getting owned by a well planned and executed strategy or counter strategy is always fun too. I think milsim is a lot of things to a lot of people but as Morb points out, it a mindset moreso than anything else. If the mindset is there the game usually morphs into something more military-like and compelling for those who wish to immerse or lose themselves in the fantasy of being an operator in a real situation (minus the pesky old death thing).

One problem that arises for me is when you mix milsimers with those who are clearly not milsimers, the non-milsimers tend to do things that break the fantasy - its not their fault necessarily, they aren't trying to participate in an immersive experience, they're there to have a bb fight, so thats where I think some of the differences occur during a gameplay that milsimers sometimes find frustrating. Take Meat's Vietnam era Ops. These operations are as much about (if not moreso) recreating the experience of being a solider in Vietnam, using airsoft guns is a way of making the experience more immersive and visceral, than it is about airsoft itself. Airsoft is secondary and subserviant to the illusion you're trying to foster! When wearing the right gear and submitting yourself to the mindset to the point where you speak think and talk the way you think it was like back then reenforces the quality of everyone elses experience.

I am not trying to piss on non-milsimers, its just when you have a clearly defined milsim game, its also a request for a mutual and consentual suspension of disbelief, like when we go to the movies. When that gets broken, milsimers tend to get testy.

The colollery to this is that those who are not in the milsim mindset and don't understand what a milsim is trying to do see a milsimer as being 'hardcore' or 'overbearing' (due to giving orders) or just plain not fun to play with because of it.

Another characteristic in milsimers is aggression. Often times I think this is the core of misunderstanding between Wolfpack members and other players in the community. We train for and encourage aggression, and for better or for worse sometimes we come off wrong at a game, and those who observe it who don't know the context get upset with us. Then back at the safe area, we're helping people fix guns, doing field repairs on gear (I don't know how many times I've seen Morb helping someone with a piece of kit, or Gump ripping down someone's AEG, or me fixing a battery problem). I've seen people get geniunely confused over this dualism. When we recruit, we not only looking at someone's overall presentation, but we look for people who are geniunely friendly and helpful and who want to make the game better. Actually skills and physique are at the bottom of the list. Skills can be taught, and physique is well - I am about 40lbs overweight, but I hold my own. If we starting picking our players on physicial condition, three quarters of the team would not qualify! Yes, mindset is the primary evaluation criteria.

[whisper_kill]

What I'd really like to see is more Milsim events that are operated as "team versus team", where Milsim teams can ...dare I say it....compete against one another. No more "JTF vs the US Rangers in the Arctic Circle, fighting for control of Canada's polar bears", but rather Team X operating on their home field and defending it from Team Y, with a "territorial record" kept of who has "conquered" which areas....this only a very small part of the idea. It could go on indefinetely, until all "contested areas" are either won or lost. You never lose the use of your fields of course, it's just a method of "scoring". "Owning" more territory could permit you to field more troops, etc. Just an idea of course...and it doesnt have to necesarily be limited to the organised milsim teams. Red VS Blue as it were, with each side consisting of a coalition of teams and or individuals.

Sounds a lot like "Risk". I love it. Honestly, that's a great idea albeit a massive undertaking.