What is your true definition of "Milsim"

[QKLee11]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

Gish,

now you gone and done it...

cracked open ASC debate number 21-b

What is Milsim..

Military Simulation.

mil·i·tar·y
/ˈmiləˌterē/
Adjective
Of, relating to, or characteristic of soldiers or armed forces: "both leaders condemned the buildup of military activity".
Noun
The armed forces of a country.
Synonyms
adjective. martial - warlike - soldierly
noun. army - armed forces - troops

sim·u·la·tion (smy-lshn)
n.
1. The act or process of simulating.
2. An imitation; a sham.
3. Assumption of a false appearance.
4.
a. Imitation or representation, as of a potential situation or in experimental testing.
b. Representation of the operation or features of one process or system through the use of another: computer simulation of an in-flight emergency.


MILSIM

The act or process of simulating relating to, or characteristic of soldiers or armed forces in action.

IN my opinion much that is billed as MILSIM is not, and I have been serially disappointed with most events that I have attended as a participant. To the point that I have pretty much withdrawn from the wider community and focused my attention on WWII reenactment events. This is where "real Milsim" is happening.

Things like Running wire for communications, Digging in and building defences for an attack that may not come. Encamping in the field, Rehearsing operations and conducting ongoing training in the field. Employing formations, commands and procedures according to a national doctrine. Building units with the appropriate mix of weapons and equipment and deploying them as they would have been. Feeding troops in the field. Adhering to operational timings, Navigating terrain, and reporting to superiors.

Real objectives, and commanders who can plan operations sequentially to achieve those objectives. and units that concede to be commanded.

Essentially behaving a doing those things that soldiers do in a combat zone.

What you are looking for is "a day in the life" of a small unit of both sides of a conflict.. and then bringing those two sides together through providing a combative context.. give them a reason to fight.

Since I got involved in the WWII community my satisfaction with my military simulation experiences has rebounded and redoubled.. I'm not looking back.


Military Simulation is not.. Green VS tan .. body count slugfests, it is not 'FRAGOS" with no purpose, it is not flipping flags, or snatching "nukes"
it is not taking and holding ground that has no tactical or strategic relevance.
It is not searching the forest for baskets of Easter eggs to trade in for "points" that no one cares about.

it is not a live action video game, composed of endless firefights against respawning hordes of lone wolf attackers who have no sense of self preservation.

whatever Brian, this is coming from a guy who wanted to deploy spies on the other side to act as spies during events...matter of a fact there are 2 ppl who I know who acted as spies in your game...we had for a while access to your JOTF File not slinging shit but tired of your know it all nonsense...

[Basic-Wedge]

Originally Posted by QKLee11

whatever Brian... not slinging shit but tired of your know it all nonsense...

Well, that didn't take long.

[Jamroxorz]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

but you don't have to go to a "big game in the USA" to get it

you don't need hundreds of people and armoured vehicles to get the same feelings and experiences.

EASTWIND is a great example of what MILSIM can be ..


but it can also be much smaller.. and more focused.

Over the past year I have been involved in several small scale operations that included intelligence aspects, that defined mission parameters. through analysis of intelligence we defined a target and a date, and a scope of operation.. on that date and location we deployed a specially trained unit with specific ROE and objectives.. between initial warning order, intelligence gathering and mission profile development and unit selection and training these operations took an average of 3 months to complete. The actual operations were often concluded within about 1.5 hours ( some less , like 40 minutes ) the shooting part was just the culmination of the intelligence gathering, preparation and Training.

These were 1 life operations, no respawn, if you are hit you are dead for the operation. When you do things like this, you get a quality of experience that is unmatched in any other event.

One of the operations we did was surveillance and intelligence interception in an urban environment.. no shots were fired.. but it was still a very stimulating MILSIM

I agree, I think small organized events would be just as stimulating, I don't assume or suggest Milsim has to be huge with tons of people, and recognize smaller games if done properly can be just as amazing.

Originally Posted by Trev140_0

The term Milsim, to me, is tossed around like a bag of potatoes and is truly sad for those who are actually trying to put on real milsim games.

After all, how many games have been posted that said:

• 18-24 hour game
• rain or shine
• 300 people
• camping night before
• Serious guys only, but will accept non serious if you pay in advance and try hard
• "be prepared guys...ok...don't forget your rain coat and flashlight", and turn your roger beep off.

Bam.

Milsim

Really? What exactly is the difference? One storyline is the fall of a government, and another is an uprising of the xxx forces?


Again, I have huge respect for the hard core guys that do this and play games geared only to these people. But when I read AAR's of these games, and can pick off guys who have come to my field and know cant last 4 hours- its a bit of a stretch to wonder how 18-24 hours goes.


The goal needs to be clarified, and often it goes back to making the numbers vs offering the experience as described.

Numbers is often the root cause of the problem. It should not be the goal but the outcome.

I really believe if Milsim games were posted that absolutely did not allow newbs and filtered the players severely, the games would be at the next level.

It does take some balls to do this, but the end game might wind up pulling the hard core guys all to the same game.

I can assure you, in this situation, you would not have guys wondering off to the cars for 2AM beer-in battle.

And if you think this is out of line, think of all the milsim games played/posted in the past 2 years and re do them with only the guys that "should" have been at the game.

Imagine the outcome.

Question is, how would you choose who to let on, and how do new people to "milsim" who feel they're ready for such an experience get on

[pugs144]

Originally Posted by QKLee11

whatever Brian, this is coming from a guy who wanted to deploy spies on the other side to act as spies during events...matter of a fact there are 2 ppl who I know who acted as spies in your game...we had for a while access to your JOTF File not slinging shit but tired of your know it all nonsense...

Need a hug?

[QKLee11]

Originally Posted by pugs144

Need a hug?

sure hug away

[hollywood...]

Originally Posted by QKLee11

whatever Brian, this is coming from a guy who wanted to deploy spies on the other side to act as spies during events...matter of a fact there are 2 ppl who I know who acted as spies in your game...we had for a while access to your JOTF File not slinging shit but tired of your know it all nonsense...

wow

[Janus]

Wow indeed.

As for the topic;

Milsim is a 4-letter word and should not be used under any circumstances. The style of game most commonly found to be the most fun is a multi-objective continuous scenario with evolving objectives, LOOSE guidelines and a parking lot lockdown.

I.e. large scale scenario = fun. Don't enforce HOW a team should organize. No one likes a micro manager.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by QKLee11

whatever Brian, this is coming from a guy who wanted to deploy spies on the other side to act as spies during events...matter of a fact there are 2 ppl who I know who acted as spies in your game...we had for a while access to your JOTF File not slinging shit but tired of your know it all nonsense...

I have set conditions in some of my games where opposing forces could deploy intelligence assets, as an element of the game, and of the story. In each and every case that I have done so it was up to those people to infiltrate the enemy forces of on their own using guile and deception, and with no assistance from anyone. Yes.. they had to "act"
I have also provided clues in the backstory as to the possibility of this happening.
In addition anyone who choses to accept such a risky role goes in with ONE life with no respawn. If they get caught.. they are out of the game. Can you imagine the satisfaction of the player who executes their mission successfully? I can, because I have seen it happen those players come back.

I have also used ongoing games to provide training opportunities for third forces to conduct single objective one life missions within the context of an ongoing game without the knowledge of the other players. In one game I had 5 different factions operating on the field Most people only knew of 2. But as the game went on evidence of the activities of unknown forces became suspected .. then known.

in most cases these things are very successful in providing an element of confusion, and stress within the players, and frankly it's the only means to attract some players who have withdrawn from the wider community.

Of course this does mean that my games are not GREEN vs TAN line up and pull triggers kind of affairs.. you have to pay attention, think and be aware of your weak spots lest they be exploited. You have to read and analyze the back stories to bring context to the game. You may be required to interact with opposing forces or unknown elements in more than a "lets get em!" context..

I can tell when people don't bother to do these things because they end up confused, distressed and in some cases upset when things get "weird" and often they don't come out to my games anymore. Which in fact self corrects the problem.

I know we differ in our approach to game design, but I'm pretty sure there is room for everyone.

Clearly FR has a winning series in nightfall.. people like it, everyone likes it milsim players, and skirmishers alike, so you're doing something right.

It's clear that you don't like "my kind of games" that challenge players to do more than load mags and count bodies and that is ok, not everyone has to. But we do have to work together and respect each other. We play in the same sandbox.

[Ricochet]

Plus 1 on " wow indeed"!

As a long time standing member of ASC, I often disagree with Brian on core issues, and I have encountered massive support and/or opposition on many of these. You however waited to take a public shot at Brian for self gratification; shame on you.

Gish asked what is everyone's interpretation of airsoft milsim is, and everyone is entitled to their opinion within reasonable means, especially including someone like Brian. What was the purpose of your comment sir?


Anyways, I used the remark "fun" open ended, but yes it varies from person to person. As pointed out though, a 'simulation' is what it is, and must include reasonable dynamics to call itself such. You'd be more likely to hit a true milsim in a short and to the point operation, than an endurance game. I guess a fair question is, "what is your goal?".

[QKLee11]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

I have set conditions in some of my games where opposing forces could deploy intelligence assets, as an element of the game, and of the story. In each and every case that I have done so it was up to those people to infiltrate the enemy forces of on their own using guile and deception, and with no assistance from anyone. Yes.. they had to "act"
I have also provided clues in the backstory as to the possibility of this happening.
In addition anyone who choses to accept such a risky role goes in with ONE life with no respawn. If they get caught.. they are out of the game. Can you imagine the satisfaction of the player who executes their mission successfully? I can, because I have seen it happen those players come back.

I have also used ongoing games to provide training opportunities for third forces to conduct single objective one life missions within the context of an ongoing game without the knowledge of the other players. In one game I had 5 different factions operating on the field Most people only knew of 2. But as the game went on evidence of the activities of unknown forces became suspected .. then known.

in most cases these things are very successful in providing an element of confusion, and stress within the players, and frankly it's the only means to attract some players who have withdrawn from the wider community.

Of course this does mean that my games are not GREEN vs TAN line up and pull triggers kind of affairs.. you have to pay attention, think and be aware of your weak spots lest they be exploited. You have to read and analyze the back stories to bring context to the game. You may be required to interact with opposing forces or unknown elements in more than a "lets get em!" context..

I can tell when people don't bother to do these things because they end up confused, distressed and in some cases upset when things get "weird" and often they don't come out to my games anymore. Which in fact self corrects the problem.

I know we differ in our approach to game design, but I'm pretty sure there is room for everyone.

Clearly FR has a winning series in nightfall.. people like it, everyone likes it milsim players, and skirmishers alike, so you're doing something right.

It's clear that you don't like "my kind of games" that challenge players to do more than load mags and count bodies and that is ok, not everyone has to. But we do have to work together and respect each other. We play in the same sandbox.

Try Operation Cove if you want challenge for mission set, high/slow OP Tempo, physical challenges in operating on foriegn soil, new rugged terrain fighting in high altitudes with adverse weather conditions which puts high demand on physical fitness, tactical skill and the constant alertness in patroling, game dynamic changed but it is not "Play acting"or ppl signing up on 1 team to turn around shoot you in the back or gain intel (a very quick way to fuck over someone/Game host game)...small group 2 40 man platoons fighting/patrolling against one another as a Platoon/Squad/Recce Det (In Cove Virginia)...

I was in the Military for 8 years and on 2 Operational tasking, I can assure you when you talk about MILSIM...unless it is the real thing it ain't period. I have yet seen a game bring out true MILSIM however I have been to games where the game host tries to bring in realism/tasking/simulation in the enviroment that challenge you as a leader or your Squad. I was a Senior NCO in the Army Reserves and have pushed Troops to the brink on TRG and Courses. MILSIM to me is game where I am looking for a better OP then scrimming...Mission or Missions set for the Operational Tasking on hand. Fair to both sides...not where one side gets a real mission while another goes on a fucking treasure hunt. Most OPs/MILSIM aren't true in an aspect due to the capabilies of the weapons used ie. You hide behind bush, I shoot through the bush, in the real world your dead in airsoft you hang on in most cases until the assault goes through and you can take out a couple ppl...Fire fights are never really won in some cases because most of the fighting happens in 30 meters minus your basically in the assault before the Firefight is won, the physical fitness of Troops/ppl who play are not in the best shape...hey I am 20 pounds heavier then what I should normally be but I still work out I can still run and Bench press 260lds for a set 6 (don't box anymore) point I am getting too is Cove was 24 hour OP that I completed and My Squad for 24 hours./ OP Sovereign Fury was 30 hour Op which I fought the Fight for 27 hours 15 mins and finished the OP, most players can't do 24 hour MILSIM let alone 18 hours. MILSIM Brian isn't what you say, what I say or even what Force Recon says. MILSIM is percieved in different perceptions by other ppl. I only have been on 2 shit show games in the 5 years I have been involved in the community, recently in Atlanta Georgia and Barrie last summer...no Brian I didn't think OP Deadfall 2 was a shit show, I had some reservations but the gameship amoungst the players in hit calling was fair. The only reservation I had was at the end, however that game is now over done with.

Airsoft Canada en bodies everyone on this forum...everyone has an opinion. Game host will introduce games and land mark it "MILSIM"...the game host who has the BEST SCENARIO/MISSION/REALISM/HONORABLE PLAYERS AND STAFF/REASONABLE GAME ADMISSION will get my money and my time. Just because a GAME HOST states the Game is MILSIM (or 30 hours) doesn't mean the cost should be high and if it is there better be something substantial given back to the players along with their experience.

Now I am 1 of the Commanders For Force Recon MILSIM, this post does not reflect my Team members Opinions. However 1 thing for sure at any game this TEAM gives 100% win or lose, I push the the shit out of my guys TRG (not as bad as I 1rst started)...the best games we as Team have been to is South of the border minus Atlanta Georgia...I have yet been to a game in Canada that fills that void (RHINO 1 was close to the bullshit at the end.."maybe play acting got involved" and ruin it for some...AAR reflected it the short comings but ppl chest thumped and ignored them)...with that being said I like too see another Game Host in Canada run a MILSIM with true objectives/mission set/2 teams that follow the Chain of Command/ Realism with a Espirit De Cours and Comraddie during and at the end of the game. With that being said I think Csk should give it another Try, I for one will attend.

Again this post does not reflect my Teams Opinion, this is mine and mine alone.

Q

[Derpystronk]

MILSIM isn't really a binary concept, it's more of a spectrum. The deeper you go into the simulation side of things the further you get away from military, and vice versa. Sure you could have a 30 hour game where two sections are to patrol a forest, interact with locals, investigate and try and find the insurgents operating in the area (With, maybe, *gasp* one life only?) Heavily focused on a scenario which you could very well encounter in real life with rules set to reinforce that scenario. Most people don't really consider the "talking with the locals" aspect military, instead the image always comes back to two nations duking it out. Cool. No problem with that. As you structure the rules to really focus on that element of it and streamline the event, you lose out on the smaller nuances and end up with games where all you do is capture control points and react to enemy movement.

There are very few games that I have felt combined some of the best aspects of both; the shooting and the little bit of roleplay to manipulate the play space. Most of those games have been under Brians command. What makes those games really pop is that the instructions are very clear on what the scope of the game is; what is and is not possible. At last years Deadfall he stipulated that there civilians in play, how to detain them, how to search them, and what each teams instructions were on encountering them.

At last years Deadfall there was a point where I was with two team mates and our path was directly blocked by about 20 JOTF members. I gave my weapon to a team mate and offered myself as a distraction. I went up to the soldiers, started talking to them, making a bunch of noise so my friends could sneak through the forest without being heard. I was searched, detained, and brought back to their HQ and questioned. I was eventually executed when they found out I was an insurgent... Before putting a bullet in my head they were being nice, offered me food... Their security was lax and I overheard some things, and had four distinct opportunities to grab an unsecured weapon, shoot my captors, and escape. Everything was in play, within the scope of the rules, and wouldn't have been a surprise to players had I chose to make a Rambo attempt. My team mates made it past their patrol back to base, I collected intel; all without a single round being fired (except for the one that went into the back of my head)

Thats my personal favourite blend of MILSIM. It allows you to think of solutions that may or may not involve dispensing BB's at foes. When you have too much roleplay people won't sign up, and if you have too much GOGOGOGOGOGOGO MILITARY then people consider it a skirmish. Whether a game is 8 hours or 24 hours doesn't really change if it's a MILSIM. I think what we can agree on is a majority of events billed as "MILSIM" in Canada, isn't.

[CR0M]

have the teams evenly matched and I dont care if fat kid in multicam or paintballer guy bows out after 4 hours... aslong as theres still people fighting until the end...

when you have known asc names vs peoples names youve never seen before and the game is falling apart when its getting dark, what do you expect?

when you got good names on both sides, and guys pushing till the end of the game that stuff rubs off on noobs and other players who usually quit.

look at athena 2... it was fighting right up until the very end.

[nardac]

+1 on what Crom said.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

one of the things that has not been mentioned is that every game is what you make it. MILSIM exists wherever you want it to. It comes out of your approach to the game.

it is certainly possible for a unit of any number of players to be conducting a MILSIM right in the middle of a Skirmish.

I have been at and commanded company sized units at games where the two sides had radically different experiences at the same game. One side had a positive engaging "milsim" like experience the other, as shit show of poor organization, bad feelings and wholesale "rage quit" AT THE SAME GAME... in AAR you see the relating of very different experiences, you wonder if people were at at the same game. ( in fact they were not, despite the fact they shared the field)

One of the key aspects of a simulation is always the mind set of the participants, if they get into it, play the role. treat the situation as if it was real, act and react as if what is happening is real, then you can break through the confines of the game and create an experience that is at the next level.

It requires a suspension of reality, and a willingness to step through to an alternate reality where 6mm plastic bbs can kill you.

This mindset is very prevalent in the Reenactment end of the milsim spectrum, and also why I find myself there more and more. That and I love oldschool gear and guns.

MILSIM is not created by a game host, or by a rule set,(though a bad rule set can get in the way) it's created by the participants and their ability to engage in a scenario, and alternate reality placed in existence by the game designer. If players go with you into this alternate reality, some pretty amazing things can happen. But if they stand outside and shoot in.. it fails. I've had lots of really successful games ,, and lots of utter failures, and in every case it came down to the people who came. Consequently I am choosy as to who I permit to attend my games now. I don't care about "big games" ( I'm also very choosy about what games I participate in, due to old injuries the physical toll is high for me, so if I'm going to endure a couple of weeks of hard pain, I had better get what I want )

I don't do this to make money.. despite what some people believe. I do it to bring people along to places I want to go.

[Aswayze]

Nothing quite like discussing gaming styles to bring us all out from our troll bridges…



I’ll put in a few more comments here based on what some others have said.

Brian said: “but you don't have to go to a "big game in the USA" to get it

you don't need hundreds of people and armoured vehicles to get the same feelings and experiences.”

EXACTLY!! In point of fact, I think it is easier to have a really good milsim experience if you stick with a smaller group in general.

Here’s an example from one of the things we do over the winter in the lead up to East Wind.

We run training events generally in the fall focused mostly on leadership and hard skills such as comms and/or equipment training then over the winter months we run a series of what we call Fieldcraft Weekends which are actually nothing more than a series of challenges that we put groups through in order to allow them to put newly learned skills into practice.

One of the best ones we run is our night nav focused weekend which has teams traversing a 9 mile (14.5 Km) course across one of our National Forest Wilderness areas down in Missouri during the course of a night. We’ll generally set groups going in opposing directions and either have one team trying to make it past unnoticed or just let things play out as they may when the groups converge. Generally speaking, if one side gets totally busted by the other, it is understood that they will be buying breakfast at the Café the next morning. This probably sounds pretty simple to guys who have never covered any kind of distance tactically at night. Those that have know what all of this entails and recognize some of the challenges that are there for the taking:

Patrol leader: Has to guide everyone through the planning process, must conduct PCIs to make sure everyone is ready, checks troops gear, boot fit, looks for shiny things, checks for rattles, steadies nerves and keeps everyone together on the march.

Nav: Navigation is the biggest challenge, the area is laced with trails but it is not as simple as just following a footpath through the Jack Pines on a night were you may only have 22% moon coming up at 23:45. Fail to keep on top of where you are at any point and you’ll pay in spades. This event has a greater than 50% failure rate and almost all of that comes down to nav. If you are working nav, you have a rough night ahead if you’re not on your A game.

Signals: All of our fieldcraft event have a signals aspect as much for safety as anything else. We’ll generally have set times when the units must call in to the White Cell (Admins) and we’ll keep score of who is where doing what from there. This is not as simple as is sounds once we start talking about longer distances in hilly, densely wooded terrain. You’ll soon see who was paying attention in the comms course and who was not.

Soldier: For the new attendee just showing up as a soldier in an event like this there is simply the challenge of moving this sort of distance in your kit. Got problems with your boots? You’ll soon know for sure, pack not fitted right? You know about that too. Need to gain some experience picking your way though tough terrain with NODS, you can bet you’ll get some of that as well. If you fail, you’ll know what to do better next time, if you succeed you’ll have a lot more confidence when you step out on your next night patrol.

These are fabulously fun events and we get attendees who drive absurd distances to attend them. Some of them come to the Fieldcraft weekends with no intentions of ever coming to East Wind, they get all they want out of the weekends instead.

How many guys are we talking for one of these events to run well?

9, NINE, Neuf for our French speaking friends.

Two four man teams and 1 white cell. Great fun, bigger is not always better. Does this need excessive gadgets to work? Nope. Do you need to come to the USA to do it? Nope. If you have 9 guys up there and some land (boy do you guys ever have land) then you can do exactly the same types of event.

Trev said: “Numbers is often the root cause of the problem. It should not be the goal but the outcome.”

I agree to a point. The issue you are talking about here has more to do with managing expectations and sticking to your guns than anything else. It is tempting as an event planner to try to get as many people on board as possible with your event since there is generally the perception that a successful event is a full event. As such, sometimes planners let things slide a bit or give guys a little bit of leeway and before you know it your event is in fact full but it’s full of guys who expect to get catered to and who are not really in it for what you had planned but are instead in it because it is “the big game”. That is bad medicine, poison to milsim…

9 years ago when I started planning East Wind I said I wanted an event that ran tactically24/7 for 9 days, I wanted strict gear requirements so that we could stay tactical regardless of weather, and I wanted the infrastructure in place to do it well.

Players said: 9 days is too long, nobody will want to attend that long, lets just cut it back to a weekend!

Players said: Gear requirements are too restrictive, we should just let people use their judgment and we can just go non-tactical if there is bad weather.

Players said: Night games are hard, we should just run perhaps 2-3 hours out of each night so people can rest.

Players said: All that infrastructure costs a lot of money to get and manage, lets just have players bring their own stuff, sleep in their cars or just go to motels at night.

So if I had followed the advice I was getting, I would be running pretty much the same “weekend OP” everyone else has…

I didn’t, I stuck to my guns and kept to the vision I had for my event. I would get emails from big teams who wanted to attend but wanted this one little rule bent so that they could use their team uniform and I would say no. I would lose those guys, (sometimes) but at the same time, I kept the original vision of what I wanted to do intact.

I am CERTAIN, that every event host knows what I am talking about. You have an idea, it is a good one, it is going to absolutely kick A$$, but it ends up dying the death of a thousand paper cuts as one piece at a time it slowly gets frittered down to the same old same old by the end of the day.

If you want Milsim, you need to determine what it is you want to do, what you REQUIRE of your attendees (you do not want “customers”) and then be absolutely clear and honest about what you are doing. If someone directly challenges your plan, says that they think it will not work, thinks you are a fool to try it, etc then you just smile and keep moving forward. Time will tell but it will only tell if you have the courage to give your own ideas a chance to stand on their own merit.

If you want Milsim, you need to set requirements and then just as importantly you need to mean it. If you say that you require rain gear and big tall Sam with the shimmering smile shows up without rain gear then you tell big tall Sam with the shimmering smile to go pound sand, he does not have the gear you said was required. What’s big tall Sam going to do? Of course he’s going to run off to the internet where he is going to complain bitterly about what a huge horses a$$ you are, swear that he’s never driving 4 hours to go to one of your events again, and encourage everyone else to do the same. In other words, he’s going to become a tremendous marketing asset for you. He is going to cement in everyone’s head the fact that when you say that you require rain gear at the event you are not kidding. He’s going to tell the guys who are smart enough not to show up on a 10 degree day that has a 30% chance of rain without the right gear that when they show up ready to go, the event can and will still happen because the event planner can push forward through potential weather. He is telling the serious guys that you are serious…

Don’t waiver on your vision, there are others out there who want what you want. Provide it and you will get “the numbers” even if the numbers only ends up being 30 guys instead of 300.

Trev also said: “I really believe if Milsim games were posted that absolutely did not allow newbs and filtered the players severely, the games would be at the next level.”

I agree with the concept of what you are saying but not exactly what you are saying.

Again, this is about managing expectations. If newbs are showing up expecting what you are producing then in fact the issue is not newbs at all, the issue is leaders.

Give me 90 newbs and 18 real leaders and we will have a milsim game that will knock your socks off. If you give a section of newbs a section leader who can take the time to show them what to do, guide them the right directions towards success, allow them to grow and learn over the course of the event, and dare I say, allow them to fail then they will have a successful section. You give those section leaders a platoon leader who can provide the guidance needed to keep the sections on task, communicates well enough to make sure that EVERY troop knows his part of the puzzle, then you will have a successful platoon. You give everyone Company level leadership that can manage rest/work cycles, keeps everyone fed, keeps up with the logistics and can provide the upper guidance needed to keep things flowing and your entire event will flow. Leaders are the issue, not newbs. Get more leaders and your newbs will do just fine. Put one guy in a tent with 14 squawking radios and a bad map expecting him to guide unskilled section leaders via platoon leaders who have broken radios and you have a recipe for failure. I have seen that play out time and again at “big ops” and I am sure most of the rest of you have as well.

Worry about leaders, focus on leaders, don’t sweat newbs.

Janus said: “I.e. large scale scenario = fun. Don't enforce HOW a team should organize. No one likes a micro manager.”

There is a common misconception that Milsim means that you are not going to have leeway in what you are doing, that things are automatically scripted etc. This is not the case at all.

Here’s why:

“You men there are going to go up over the top of this trench and move at a walk across no mans land towards the enemy position when I blow on this shiny shiny whistle” “You must take that trench and eliminate the enemy machine guns located there”

TOOOT!!!!

There are many memorials here with the names of the brave men who died following those kinds of orders during WW1. I am CERTAIN, that there are even more up there in Canada since you guys were involved a great deal longer than we were down here. WWI saw a lot of long lasting changes in how wars were fought but the one thing that came out of that war that rings as clear today as it did back at Cambrai is the fact that leadership insulated from the men who are doing the fighting us a sure recipe for failure.

In 1917 the French experimented with doing it differently, rather than the officers knowing the plan and just driving the men forward with bluster and resounding rhetoric they brought the soldiers into the planning process, they showed them the plan, the ENTIRE plan, they made absolutely certain that the soldiers understood above all else what the commanders intent of their portion of the mission was and MOST importantly, they gave enlisted soldiers the authority to make command decisions on the battlefield that were in direct conflict with “the plan” as long as they were doing so to achieve the intent of the plan. In other words, they began to look, however briefly at what would happen if they had an NCO corps.

The French experiment did not resonate well with the French but damn did it ever have an impact on the Germans who felt the brunt of what this system could do. They learned from the brief French experiment and grew it from there into what nearly every professional army in the world today recognizes as how combat orders are done.

“why are you telling stories about battles from 95 years ago when we are talking about milsim”

Because when you are doing it right, all that structure at a milsim event that you think is there to bind you is actually there to support you. If we take the focus away from “trigger time” and instead focus on missions then the leadership can give you well worded orders that allow you to come up with a plan, a REALLY good plan, to go achieve your mission and succeed without just being told to go over the top when the whistle is blown. Milsim done right gives you so much MORE leeway and so much less micromanagement if you see the limitations you have as ties that support you rather than ties that bind you.

Crom said: “have the teams evenly matched and I dont care if fat kid in multicam or paintballer guy bows out after 4 hours... as long as there’s still people fighting until the end...”

Well said, this is again a matter of leadership above all else. If we get guys out of this mode of thinking that everything has to be a beach assault run run run situation 24/7 and instead focus on the bigger picture, then the pace can slow to a point where you can actually manage things a little bit better and keep your guys in the field. This is a HUGE problem at big games here in the states. Summer time events where the game kicks off at 10:00 am into a huge fight, by 3:00 pm, if you managed yourself well you can pretty much walk the field and take objectives at will since literally 60% of the players (including leadership) will be back at camp at best or down with heat exhaustion at worst. The last big event I was at (which was actually pretty well run even) was Broken Home by American Milsim. I was just in the area and stopped off to help the staff guys with some logistics then ended up using my truck for medevac duty when players started dropping out from not managing heat well. The end of that event looked a lot like the end of a lot of bigger events in that there was a fraction of the guys who started out on the field. This is always a problem but the solution comes down to leadership as much as anything else. We see some fluctuations from things like people needing to leave early from work and we do see some people drop out from injury or illness at East Wind but in general we end the event with about the same amount of guys on the field that we started with. Is it because we are all uber soldiers who eat nothing but wheatgrass smoothies while doing pushups wearing barbed wire jockstraps? Nope. It’s troop management. Manage troops well and you’ll have a force at the end of the day. Focus on “trigger time” and just keep cycling guys again and again at the same Yosemite Sam charge attack at the same place then you’ll end up falling behind on troop management and onesy twosey, they’ll filter back to the cars…

Brian said: “It requires a suspension of reality, and a willingness to step through to an alternate reality where 6mm plastic bbs can kill you.”

Another way to look at that is personal investment in the situation. If you really believe that you are there for the experience rather than the to “win” and you have time and energy put into what you are out to achieve then you REALLY do not want to get hit with that BB regardless.


Sheesh…. 5 pages…. I need to lighten the hell up…