Peer Review: Art of War Op Blood Diamond
 

As promised here is version 1.0 of AOW: Blood Diamond.

The purpose of this posting is to seek peer review for the game. This PDF contains the main game story, combatant, mission and goals, gameplay, medic and respawn rules.

The idea is to tune the gameplay, bulletproof the rules, and raise the gameplay quality to make it as enjoyable as possible.

My personal goals for this game are:
1) easy to understand
2) rules that eliminate ambiguity
3) gameplay is almost the same from both sides
4) mission goals are measurable at the player, group and team level

Please review and let me know how I could make this game better.

We intend to "beta" the game in a capped 40 player low cost test. Beta testers will enjoy benefits such as:
- Free food at the Op
- Chance to be in the videos for the game rules and promotion
- A chance to perform in a workshop/gaming environment (new concept)
- Low cost - using cost recovery model, field rental cost only.
- All beta test players will be listed in the final game document as co-authors of the game.

That being said, we will be picky on the participants as we need people who will contribute to the development of the game and be willing to do concept testing. Positive can do attitudes are a must.

Thanks in advance!

i like the idea it seems well laid out cant wait to hear how the beta play test goes

I've taken a good look at the game organization and rules.

here is my impression

Too many cards
too many "items"

Players will lose the cards, give the wrong ones away as kill cards.. and generally not pay attention to the cards.

Players will lose their diamond pouches.. and the diamonds and generally not care about them.

From a game control standpoint this will result in a lot of time dealing with complaints regarding guys not having cards, replacing lost cards .. or dealing with guys who have lost their pouches.

and for what? mostly players don't care about "scores" and tallies.
no one really cares who "wins" at the end of the game.

Sure the Commanders on each side may care, a few players may get engaged in the accumulation of the scoring items. but for the vast majority of players they just don't care.

Players will remember the fights they had, the experiences, the intensity of emotion and stress in the moments that stand out for them. These things they may talk about even years later. They won't remember how many diamonds they had in their pouch at the end of the game.

Commodity acquisition games must trade in "REAL" commodities to get players to engage.
There are only 2 commodities that have any relevance to players. Bullets ( BBs) and Lives. if you limit these commodities and make the fights about them you will generate real stress and real emotion, and real memories. If you link these commodities to objectives, Such as "attack and hold the ammo dump" = a full reload for everyone on your side. You will see a hard fight for sure.

There was a time when the player base could be engaged in a good story line, and would engage in roles and buy in to sophisticated "commerce" + violence game designs. Games like " drug wars" and Trifecta are notable examples of past events that were successful.

The player base of today is more focused on the immediacy of pay off. They are looking for intense fighting experiences without the need for arithmetic or ledger-keeping, even very simple game dynamic elements that require attention to specific items such as kill cards are often lost on the players of today. This is not to say that they are stupid, or immature. or anything like that, it's just to say they are looking for a more immediate pay off for effort.

If you can build a game that offers direct tangible pay off for effort then you will have a group of players that will engage, and will dive right into your game and play it to the fullest.

The players in the community have changed over time, Game design must change with them if hosts are to present events that players want to play and will get engaged in.

Thats an interesting perspective that I've struggled with as what you described sounds like an advanced skirmish.

I took Trifecta and reduced the ruleset and the card set. You only have money to buy, decks of cards and the diamonds. I thought that simplified it enough.

Let me ponder your feedback on it.

I disagree with that part. I've watched players and teams play passionately to win based on all kinds of measures, including the current group.

The Rush Hour series hosted by Renegade) completely disputes your POV Brian. Its a points based game with items and intel that are seized in the field. Its been running for 2 years and he has lots of attendance and almost no issues as you outlined. People didn't lose their cards or any of the items they were required to keep track of.

In fact the lack of a solid story line was one of the most voiced complains at Art Of War.

I think it's a bit early to give up on complex events just yet.

True, but those experiences come from game strategies that PUTS them in those firefights, and its keeping those assets that makes the engagements passionate enough to remember. I will go one further and say that a manufactured firefight or force on force contact at a skirmish, with nothing at stake, is not remembered at all. Its the spontaneous engagements that happen when an event is well structured but free enough to allow out of the box thinking that get talked about afterwards for years.

if that is the only game presented that is the game people will play, some people play every game passionately.

Resource management is critical to an effective Military simulation. but the resources have to Mean something and have a real effect on your ability to fight. Failure to manage the resources should result in significant negative impact on the ability of that faction to fight. When you are loosing.. it's obvious.. you can't deploy resources . you are short people and short Ammo.

I've used Kill cards in the past.. and as a symbol of "lives" it's effective.. but they should only "mean" something to the carrier.. if he starts with 3 .. then that means that they have 3 opportunities to be deployed outside of the base. If he get all three cards taken, then he can't leave the perimeter of the base without risk of being captured. Possession of a Kill card is your" respawn" license. If you are caught by the enemy without a card, you are captured. A time penalty would apply, you could be held out of the game for a specified period by game control as a "prisoner" impacting in a very real way your commander's ability to deploy resources.

For example, lets say you have a game with 30 people on a side.. which is a pretty typical situation for a "weekend game" Lets say you provide those people with 3 "lives" .. effectively you have provided each commander with a resource pool of 90 people. that can be deployed in "outside the wire" missions.

Then you grant a ammo loadout-- for the side of ten thousand rounds. for that commander to distribute.

This sets the resource side of the equation.

Then you put in place your objectives. Lets say that one objective is a forward ammunition dump of the enemy. If the objective is taken, you could grant an additional Ammo supply to the victor of 5000 rounds ..

Lets also say .. that you set a territory to be held objective, because you have to push your front far enough forward to establish a forward aid station for you faction. If you are successful you can establish the forward aid station and get a grant of additional "lives" for your faction.

Lets set a very common objective, but provide it with relevance.. Lets say you have to seize a communication tower. Place a small box on the prop. with a lock.. give each commander a key. put inside that box a frequency .. or a codeword phrase that "unlocks" a resupply drop. If you fail to capture the objective, no resupply. Even better.. you unlock the box.. and find a coded message.. which you have to call in to game control to receive a decode key. all the while you must Hold the objective.

you can make the objectives as complex as "puzzly" as you want.. but all of the objectives must play back into the resource pool. Bullets and Lives.

at the end of the game it will be obvious to everyone who "won" the successful faction will have access to resources, be able to deploy outside their base .. the loosing force will be low on ammo and placed on a defensive posture because they lack the "lives" to deploy to the field.

from a game control basis.. you have the absolute power the inject balance .. and to poke the game in whatever direction you want by presenting objectives that can restore the resource balance.

For example, if you have a side that is struggling.. and running short you can present an opportunity for them to recover by presenting a mission that if completed audaciously will provide a high payoff in resources and get the faction "back in the game"

What you end up with is a game that is distinctly "mission based" focused on real resources and very demanding from a command basis to manage and control the deployment of resources. Every fight will be about real needs and have a real impact on the outcome of the game in real terms.

if that is not "milsim" I don't know what is..

Things I like:

I like the clear defining teams camos... I always feel that camo vs pmc is the best. Sure a black shirt or jeans might stand out, but ive found guys dont mind because they feel "cool" ... I know I do

things im not sure of:

The diamonds and cards thing sounds like the jaguar kings game but alot more complex. Seeing how players forget how simple regular rules work, this seems like something that would confuse alot.

maybe use the cards as regular kill cards and maybe only allow players to carry 2 diamonds at a time. and when someone gets killed they hand over a card and any diamonds they might be carrying?

Having attended AoW my main concern with how the game was structured is that nothing that we did up to the final mission really mattered, at least that is how it came across in the debrief.

What I would have liked would have been to get X points per Kill Card taken and X points per frago accomplished, X points for special things such as taking enemy commander or raiding enemy base.

At the end of the game points get added, side with the most points wins. Both sides should know how many points you get for completing certain things so they know where they need to disrupt the enemy or which objectives are more important.

I think the new system you implemented with Blood& Diamonds makes sense but in my opinion could be expanded and yet simplified.

But once again I really enjoyed AoWI and I am sure AoWII will be a blast again. I hope my input helps.

But is killing for points really MilSim?

no it's not..it's an easter egg hunt, and as productive as masturbation

the only reason to shoot anyone is to reduce available resources to the enemy. you drop a body, that is 1 less body that can shoot at you, or defend a location or carry a message, or radio an observation. You kill a commander you deny their influence on the field. Arbitrarily assigning "points" to random people is just another pointless object to chase.

Points are meaningless. when I'm involved in playing a game, I want to know right away if i'm "winning" by observing that the faction I am on has freedom of movement, ample ammo, and enough bodies up and moving that missions can be accomplished.

I want to see that the opposition is struggling to deploy, are not able to present enough firepower to deny my mobility, and are holding or falling back rather than advancing.

If I'm commanding, I have a care for everyone on my side, I want to drive the other side from the field, demoralize them and and force them to retire. The more guys I see getting fed up and packing their toys and leaving on the other side, the better. That tells me that their command is faltering, they can no longer motivate people to fight and it's now turning into a rout.

And I want the other commander to be trying to do the same thing to me.

It should be up to game control to be monitoring the flow of the game to re-balance things so that successes don't turn into a rout, and result in a lot of players quitting the fight.

Regardless ..
I don't want to have to hang out until all the beans are counted to find out who "won"

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

I used to feel the same way, only because it was obvious who "won" by the end of the game. On both sides of those outcomes its not fun.

Its not fun to crush your enemies so bad they pack it in half way. and Its not fun getting killed over and over again that theres no point in even trying.

Thats why having multiple ways of counting up points and "winning" the game prevents that.

I bring up wolfpack's jaguar kings milsim alot. But it was basically vets vs noobs. With firefights noobs were at a disadvantage. But there were all these side missions that if completed gave us points. So there was always something to keep us motivated and in the game even if we might have been losing the fighting part.

I disagree. That is the base of war. That is the most obvious goal of a milsim victory.

I guess its a personal opinion,

but when I pay a premium and drive for hours out of the way to play a milsim I dont take away any satisfaction dominating to the point where the other team gives up half way through.

Its like playing a video game on super easy mode. I want a challenge, so when you toss in multiple ways of winning you give the game more elements of challenge.

for instance.

When I play call of duty online. I stay clear of deathmatch games, because theres only one way of winning.

I usually play domination because if my shooting game isnt at par with the otherside then at least I have another way of winning.

i dont actually care about winning as much as i care about staying in the game.

Balance is required in defining the sides.. and conditions of play, there are ways to bring elements into a game that can address issues of imbalance. that is for the game host and came control to monitor.

I agree that it is no fun getting slaughtered constantly, neither is it fun to stack up against an inferior force and dominate them. The are 100% true statements.

Trying to dominate and failing, being fought to a standstill, and having to come up with a new plan is what you want both sides to be doing from a game control standpoint.

It's like paying big dollars to see a live UFC matchup.. and having the fight end in a knockout in the 1st round. Great outcome for one guy. lousy for the other and everyone kinda feels a little ripped off.

what you wanted was a long fight, where the advantage went from one guy to the other and you were never sure who was going to win.

well designed and executed games should come off that way.

thats exactly how i feel ^^^

its just been rare lately for me to be in a milsim where the sides were balanced.

one other note. maybe have registration fees increase over time leading up to the event. give people a discount for committing early. Same way marathons do it.

Theres games out there right now, that look to be good but im waiting for the rosters to get bigger if im going to commit to a high priced game. And with that train of thought games get cancelled or have low turn outs because of peoples hesitation.

Exactly, if everyone waits to see if the roster fills up before committing, obviously the roster is never going to fill up.

Known hosts who have put on solid games with great players satisfaction rarely have any issues filling the rosters.. Case in point, Nightmare 2 -- put on by force recon earlier this year sold out in a week

New hosts often bite off more than they can chew -- post a huge game .. and then have to curtail their plan when they get a lackluster response.

Start small, build your audience, and once you have a solid rep in the existing active community, do the big game

"They are looking for intense fighting experiences without the need for arithmetic or ledger-keeping, even very simple game dynamic elements that require attention to specific items such as kill cards are often lost on the players of today"

To address the criticism about the card system being too complex:

The cards are presented to the diamond seller who is a game actor. The cards set the maximum amount of diamonds someone can carry, so there is no interpretation by the player - so even if you can't add or subtract, you won't be interpreting that number as a player or doing anything complicated with it. So I fail to see why the cards are complicated.

When Blood or Diamonds (B&D) are turned in, they are given to game staff who add the B&D count into a spreadsheet - again, game staff, not players. My experience with Trifecta shows this was simple, took any scoring complexity away from the players and provided an instant comparable in game score.

Details on how scoring will work.

As people turn in their B&D, its put into a spreadsheet and will appear on both sides of the field at the buyer and seller points on an LCD monitor. There will be individual scores, group scores (for those who register a group) and team scores. The score is updated live as B&D are turned in. We've even thought up a way to broadcast it on a website so you can log in and look at the scores live from the internet.

We found this immediacy of feedback at Trifecta created game intensity as people throttled up and down their performance because they saw real time rewards and penalties for various behaviours - that game dynamic was totally unexpected and it was priceless.

Brian, I don't think you can categorically say that this type of gameplay is no longer saught after by this generation of airsofter - thats painting too many people with the same brush.

As for Milsim - thats what YOU as a player make it when you're playing in the field. If you want to run a SOG group or some type of secret squirrel society and plan out how you're going to run your group, fill your boots. Similarly those who want to run loosey-goosey can do so as well. So it creates a playing environment for everyone and doesn't cater to one type or another. And given the way people bail on games at the last minute these days, I am disinclined to run a game that caters to anyone in particular, precisely for that reason.

I agree with there being a formula that makes everyone happy.

The main reason we changed to "BattleSim" at Art of War and are moving away from MilSim is because we want to do multi-day in field events that maximize the suck and keep people in a more realistic environment longer. In other words, very little skirmish, structured gunfights, and realistic timelines punctuated with the solid camaraderie that develops from multiple days camping out at a FOB.

I agree with Brian tho that we need to take more balance approach to building BattleSim up as a game option for people in Ontario. Exactly what he outlined happened to Derek and I and we have learned from that lesson. We need to start smaller (and more affordable per person price) to get it rolling. We also need a bigger field with no exposure to the public whatsoever so we can run bright and loud without issue. That issue will be addressed next year.

I think MilSim should be defined by Scarecrows approach (I have been saying this for years) that allows the skirmishers and new players to have objectives that fulfill their expectations of event play, and some more challenging objectives, story lines and time lines that keep the hardcore (CoreSim?) guys tasked and happy.

It can be done but it ain't easy.

I have noted.. that practically NO players are chiming in on this thread. Yet many complain about games after the fact.

maybe we are overthinking this, as it seems that players don't really care what kind of games there are, as long as there are games.

why are people complainning on how much it cost we up here in Canada are payin beans for a good milsim event in the states you are paying $175 to $200 for a 24 hour game. as for equal teams hell look @ AOW and what was the outcome of that game. and yes you keep it simple tan vrs green. I for one would love to try this game out and plan on attending it either on a player roll or on the admin side of things.

As a player and a host I feel the need to say something. While I agree with much of what Brian is saying I also disagree with much of it. Players of today are no different than players of the past. The difference is back in the day the sport was new and fresh, getting the guns was difficult, expensive, and it catered to those that had money. The community was so small and tight it was easy to know everyone. The community felt more like a community, for those that were in it and for those that were onlookers (myself included into the onlooker category) These days getting into the sport has never been easier or more cost effective, in Canada that is. Anyone can get into the sport, regardless of their budget. This brings in a greater volume of players all at one time, with little to no guidance. Many of the old timers share biased and bitter views (Like Brian's) on new players, which in my opinion is the wrong way to do it. Granted there are some real asshats out there, but that happens with every sport. Why as a community do we not welcome new players into the sport with open arms. Guiding them into making safe choices and making them productive members of the community. Instead many of the vets shun "newbs", ostracizing them, and leaving the new generation with nothing but a bad taste in their mouth for the veterans of the sport and in many cases the sport its self. All that said, I welcome new players onto my team every year and I will continue to do so. I prefer completely green players, they come with a clean slate, no ego, no bad habits, and most of them are eager to learn. Why is it that so many share Brians views for new players yet so few will stand up and take the new players under their wings?

As for the questions at hand in this thread. Simplicity and cohesion are everything. Too many games are put together that have easily misinterpreted rule sets, game control seems to be lacking a strong presence, and more work seems to go into the back story than into the actual objectives put into the field. As a player I have a strong appreciation for physical objectives that make sense for the game structure. Actual comm towers, crates, bombs to be disarmed, dummies to be carried out, decent maps, etc are what really turns me on to a game. When I pay to play and the event boasts a flag or a jar of jam as part of the objective list it starts to lose its appeal to me. Game control also needs a firm and strong presence at all times. If an issue arises game control needs to handle it asap and without bias. Too many times I see game control handling an issue with bias because they are friends with one of the accused or they don't want to upset a whole team for fear of them never returning to a game. This makes game control appear weak and spineless, which is a massive turn off. Multiple obtainable objectives with strict guidelines and time structure is huge too. Loose time lines and single file type objectives are over done and lacking in creativity.

Here are some issues I encountered at AOW.

1) Game Control was sparse and slow to respond to in game issues. Fast to respond to injuries or health concerns though. In game conflicts were handled half assed and with a biased tone.

2) Time lines and objective structures were unclear at time, loosely enforced, and changed on the fly to suit one team or the others outcomes. I understand changes must be done on the fly to make the game move along smoothly but it must be done with great caution. Confusion makes the players lose focus.

3) The secrecy surrounding the teams, structures, etc leading up to the day of the event put a sour taste in my mouth. I had no clue what was going on up until a few days before the event, and I had been signed up well in advance.

Just my two cents

I was at AOW and had a blast. With my limited experience so far, I think the numbers suffered at AOW for one reason alone. That being it was on a long weekend. I think the turn out would had been double if it was held on a normal weekend. Too many family commitments to keep on long weekends. I heard it from the boss for going, but I did not want to miss it. That said, I don't think I will be missing a summer long weekend with the family for a while now.
Score keeping at the end is fine so long as command know ahead of time what each objective is worth. That way they can decide if it is worth the resources to go after a certain objective.

DBSpotter, you make some good points, can't disagree ( even with the bitter part)

The influx of new players has altered the demographic, and the dynamic in many games. the experience level of many players is low, many have less than 2 seasons under their belt.

The community certainly is much larger that it was when I got started in 2005, and ASC though still a key clearing house for much of what is going on in the community certainly is not the only center of activity.

There are a lot of people stepping in to hosting games , many new venues opening up. All of these things are good for the community at large.

With a community this large there should be room for every kind of game conceivable, and the people who like them to go.

I only offer my observations based on what I have seen work, and not work, on feedback on games I've hosted, and participated in. I'm hooked into many diverse sections of this community I hear feedback from practically every game that happens within 4 hours drive of Toronto. I ask questions, I seek answers. I look for ways to improve game play satisfaction for games that I host.

I've had hits.. and misses, I've had games that people rave about and some that people were bitterly disappointed in. I've learned what people like and want, and I try to deliver exactly that.

I don't have all the answers, but I have some of them. I think.

I think one way to build the Airsoft community up to what it used to be is to have everyone introduce themselves at the beginning of games, like go around and everyone says what their Callsign/ASC handle is as well as their real name.

When there are no strangers there is more honor. Less cheating and a friendlier vibe will do wonders for the sport.

I couldn't agree with you more. I mentioned a few weeks ago that one of the issues with the sport is no one shakes hands after a game. When I play baseball or when any of my friends play hockey they always shake hands after the game. It just breeds good blood.

There was a time when everyone wore their call signs on their airsoft uniforms like a badge of honor, your reputation was tied to it. Those days are gone now only a few still do it.

When work dies down in Sept. I will review the game as well and add my .02's.

That should be interesting at games with 200+ or even 300+ players. 2-3 hours of introductions 1-2 hours of handshakes... alright good to go. :cool:

But I feel like you know who his who with team badges and name tags its not that difficult to make friends and put faces to teams and call signs, just introduce yourself if nobody comes to you and doors will open.

So far I have only encountered open arms and everybody has helped and was friendly on the field.

I hope future hosts are reading this thread - its chaulk full of bang on ideas and theories.

I've been reading since the beginning and haven't posted simply because you're all saying what myself and probably what a lot of players are already thinking - or at least the ones that care enough.

I've been taking tons of notes. Lots of good advise on what to focus on, and it really is dependant on what time of event you are going to run.

I also like some of the elements of the OP, will probably use some of those ideas as well.

Imagine that!

lol but yeah as Maddog said, not everyone wears nametapes nowadays, I never did as I never got around to ordering some, but I intend to order a couple when I get back.

This would work for smaller games obviously, but smaller games are what most people go to on a regular basis anyway.

The less anonymity the better, so u don't end up hearing things like "that guy in the multicam with the SCAR didn't call his hits" in the AAR

While I agree that a game boasting 200 players just would not make sense, but it seems that you have missed the point. The point being friendly faces make for friendly fire fights. Then again how many events boast 200 players every year in Ontario? There is no reason not to introduce yourself to a new face or faces at any skirmish type event. However it's done doesn't really matter but in other sports the teams generally shake hands after the game.

Here are some issues I encountered at AOW.

You obviously were not present for the TWO times we pulled both sides into the game control area and worked out issues with a trained mediator. If you are going to bash the resolution process, be specific about where it failed. we have a resounding positive reports from players and team leaders on how issues were handled.

I don't like your tone in that it suggests bias towards one team of the other. Yes, some of the objectives could have been executed better, totally agree. That was due mainly to a couple of loopholes that Derek and I found in our rule-sets that created ambiguity and confusion.

We decided it was better to move the game forward and smooth things over than call a halt to the game and ruin everyone's morale. Command from both teams were directly involved in that decision. They actually came up with the solutions as mediated by Scarecrow.

If you have a problem with the changes to the event, I suggest you talk to your commanders and ask them about game decisions, as they helped make them during parley.


Agreed. People didn't know what to do with a more real life operational OPSEC situation. BattleSim will continue this approach, but with some changes to satisfy the requests of players to have more back story and key motivational objectives so they can get behind what their respective teams are doing.


At any rate, this is turning into a great thread, just not about the OPs topic of choice. we are going to have to start another one to focus on Blood Diamond and leave this one as a discussion on hosting.

Part of our game briefing actually has an exercise that can be completed buy 200-300 people, but at AOW we didn't have time to execute it. Scarecrow has a very effect 10 minute exercise in engaging players in a social contract that allows them to understand they are there to make the event as fun as possible for the people surrounding them, and not themselves. Others will take care of that.

I am not doing it justice here. Once we run a series of smaller events you will see it in action if you attend. It really adds to the playing experience.

Since this thread is turning into a hosting discussion, why don't you share it ? If it is that good, others may actually want to emulate you and run the same in their events.

No I was not present when the discussions were being had at but I was present for the the situations leading up to the meetings. Only when some of the parties were beyond pissed did you guys decide to bring both sides to the table. I was in our CP tent with my CO, 2ic, and one of the field owners before the issue was taken to the front to be discussed, so I have an idea of how displeased everyone was prior to the meet. You guys were slow to react, I didn't say you never did. A stronger and faster presence is required.

If you don't like my tone it's because you have conjured it up in your own head. I never stated a bias towards one team, but instead it seemed to swing in favor of one team or the other throughout the game. If you guys are going to change things up on the fly make sure it makes sense. You can call your quick game set changes done on the fly part of BATTLESIM but in the field it comes off as bad planning.

Alright, I'll give it my 2 cents, feel free to agree or disagree, and add/change things - it's why we're doing this.

I think one of the issues here is lack of constant objectives, something to be achieved and held throughout the game. Example, spawn points. I never was a big fan of mobile spawn point, as in my opinion (I may be wrong but it's my opinion) it takes away from life importance and fear of getting shot. You get a buddy to run back with you 50 meters or so and you're right back in the game. Respawns could be seen as reinforcements, and reinforcements arrive, let's say, by air drop or helos. For that you need to have a secured LZ/DZ (read: spawn point). Put a few of these in positions across the field and it gives commanders a constant objective to achieve and hold. It will be up to commanders to decide which ones are more important, which ones to guard and with what manpower to do so, and also gives the opposing force missions to choose and execute on their own, rather than always waiting on direction. Put two different flags there (green and blue, whatever), have a visible place to put the flag up so the passing player can see if this LZ is currently under his control or enemy's. Needless to say, dead person cannot walk up to the LZ, change the flag to his team's, and then respawn. Add set time of reinforcement arrival, every 30 minutes let's say, and give commanders some time constrictions to think about when deciding what time to hit an objective, as he has to plan out his reinforcement arrival.
Have players report every LZ secured to game control, so they can keep track of who holds what at any given point. When a player is dead, he's now out of play and is technically a reinforcement waiting to deploy. Now to avoid players wondering around the field for hours trying to reach spawn points only to discover they're under enemy control, they can radio the team 2IC, as it's his job to deal with casualties, for direction (that doesn't mean giving info on the battle - you're DEAD). In order for a respawn to happen, a minimum number of LIVE troops has to be present on the ground (one, two or more guys, whatever, I'd go with two as it takes minimal manpower taken away for respawn, and a single guy could be lonely and bored), marking and securing the LZ. When it's set, the dead guys can be directed to make their way and "land" there. This system also gives missions to execute (mark and secure LZ/DZ for airborne drop or helo insertion) at commander's discretion. These missions will present themselves every time casualties appear, and they keep the game busy.
If the LZ gets taken by foe during the wait for the 30 minute on the hour mark, the dead bunch can be redirected to another secured LZ and do their drop there, which simulates LZ compromise and mission abort for airborne insertion. Their punishment for failing to secure LZ on the minute mark is now having to wait additional 30 minutes before they come to life (NOTE: if you think 30 minutes is too long, choose your own time, but respawning too often takes away from casualty impact on a team strength).
If ALL the LZ/DZ points are taken by one team, the game control, which keeps track of the points btw, can now inform the losing team that airborne resupply is now unavailable. Game goes on. Dead people from losing team make their way back to game control staging area, and wait. Two things can happen: either the live members of the losing team manage to meanwhile retake a point and the dead people can now make their way there to respawn (again, on the clock), and get back into the fight, or a whole team, killed, shows up (game control knows the number of players on a team) at the staging area, and the game's over.
Important thing for game control, have a game control member present at every drop to ensure fair game (dead people should NOT come to life and fire at the enemy to assist mark/secure team in holding the LZ). Team command must inform game control on which point their drop is going to occur. If you are going with ammo limitations, use air drops for ammo resupply, or to spice up the game, hide a few caches in the field, write the code on them, and if located and identified properly to game staff, the team gets more ammo.
If the game is a 24+ game and people need an area to camp, give each team a FOB, just like in AOW, and to make things better, FOB can be used as a respawn point too, with reinforcements appearing more often (every 15 or 20 minutes let's say), which gives a FOB an importance of ability to rush reinforcements and also an increased ability to defend it. However the FOB should be located at the edge of the map, opposite from the opposing FOB, so respawning there gives little meaning to gaining ground. FOB can still be overrun and if taken by the enemy (enemy puts his flag up, reads a code placed in the centre of the FOB to game control or whatever would symbolize that), its respawn capability is then taken away permanently. The enemy must then leave FOB so the players can still access their tents to sleep, eat etc, but the area is now out of play and has no value to the game. That could then become staging area for the team without spawn points and when whole team shows up dead, game staff can call it.
Game control can still create their missions in order to give certain bonuses, introduce a spy, have them control the bridge for the convoy pass at a set time which if successful gives the team extra ammo or whatever comes to mind, but the constant objectives will keep the game flowing even when GC has nothing on their plate at the moment. In the end, the pace of the game will be controlled by players, not the staff.
If the game comes to end by eliminating all enemy players, just restart the game, but if you have 6-8 spawn points in game, the more you control, the harder it becomes to take the next point, as a) all enemy will be in that area; and b) you now have more points to defend or risk them to be retaken without the fight.
When the end ex time hits, whoever controls more points at that point wins that game! No confusion. Winner is the team with more victories (if the games are ended by elimination), or who controls more DZ at end ex mark. If one team won by elimination earlier, and other team won the end ex, the elimination victory takes over the end ex victory as they actually defeated the enemy.

If you have more to add to fine tune this idea, I'm all ears. Criticism is also welcome, as I'm sure people will pick up things that might not work in real life.

^ love it

Good stuff right there.. make the fight about territory control, tied to lives, tied to resource management .. that is exactly what I am talking about.

glad I decided to read it all lol

your ideas are simple and easy and I love them...

if there was a milsim with this type of idea behind it I would be all about it...

We can only react when made aware of the situation. I don't think its fair or you to say we were slow when you were right there in it and we had to wait for the reports to come back of an issue, contact command, arrange a meeting and then execute.

One of the other problems was communicated by you on the radio, screaming for game admin to come solve a problem (hit calling issue I got that much between ranting), not giving an explanation on what was going on, cursing, swearing and then not answering at all when I asked for a location.

You sir, were part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I don't agree with you. We did the best we could and I don't think it was slow at all. You so far are the only person to express this opinion.

I already apologized for our issues in confusing rule-sets. Take it or leave it.

My take on games:
 

Game Variables I find entertaining:

1. 3 to 5 “areas of interest” that need to be fought over and points awarded every time a flag is flipped. It forces you to use your personal and team in wider areas and I find it more “strategic” to have to use tactics and teamwork to deny the enemy ground and hence success

2. Random helicopter insertions where a team holds on to a rope and is lead into the AO and used to reinforce a team holding the ground or add to an attack. They cannot be shot at or killed until they fast rope from the line into the fight. Each team has a limited number of times they can use this advantage and a maximum amount of people allowed on the chopper. The chopper can be shot down by designated “Stinger” players put these individuals need to run up and touch the rope, they cannot be shot by the players on the chopper and if he reaches the chopper everyone is dead. There are minimal individuals with stingers and they need to be employed properly. This adds a different dynamic to the game and allows people to get right in the fight to keep the action going for those with limited patience,The adrenaline starts to pump when you can see the reinforcements coming and you need to reorg and change plans quickly.

3. I like the mobile respawn idea, games where you plant a flag that is the area you need to respawn in (groups of 3-5 at a time). Respawning players need to have kill rags on their heads and be within 5 feet of the flag to avoid ambiguity. This spawn can be overrun and captured if an opposing player touches the flag. A team loses their spawn for the next hour of play etc. If over run. Opposing players need to hustle to get the flag and each team needs to defend it. Adds another dynamic and points are given for overrunning a mobile respawn and denying the enemy an advantage. Mobile respawns can be moved but not by players waiting to spawn, only a live player.

4. No matter what a player has a 5 minute bleed out time (Unless medic reaches him) to allow other players to advance and take ground they just denied the enemy


Game Variables I Dislike:

1. I hate collecting cards and searching bodies, I am too busy looking for the next target and trying to gain ground to even bother unless I need to go right past them. Cover and survival is more important to me than searching a dead body for a card

2. Endless medic capability, you should only be able to get medical aid once, before you need to return to base to spawn. This allows for a conclusion to a firefight instead on an endless back and forth. If there is more than a couple of objectives on the field it also gives players a chance to try their luck in another area

3. A back story is nice, but I am not a roleplay/LARP kind of guy, so this is not real important to me. It could be aliens vs zombies and I would not care, as long as the game dynamic was fun and fair and clearly understood

You paint an inaccurate picture of how the "ranting" situation went down. It's clear you don't like your authority to be challenged. I stand by my statement. You guys were slow to react. Once you guys sort that out you guys will be golden.

the best medic rule Ive seen (and this should be standardized) is the one they use at trev's hill437

everyone is given a carabeaner latch with a piece of rope tied to it. the rope has 5 knots in it, each knot is a life. When you get hit, you have a 5 minute bleed out period in which a medic can get to you and untie one of the knots. If a medic doesnt come in time you walk back to your spawn point and take out one knot.

when your under fire trying to untie a knot it adds alot more challenge to the game. It makes the medic role fun as well. Sounds easy, but then take into account most of us probably wear gloves, and undoing knots with gloves isnt as easy.

Milsim is trying to simulate real life as close as possible providing it's just a game. Medics in real life usually aren't there to quickly patch the guy up and have him go back into the fight like nothing happened after he's been SHOT. Medics are there to keep the guy alive, but the guy is still going to be out of the fight, medevaced back to wherever (KAF would be example in recent events for us). If you are going to use medics, I'd focus on perhaps shortening the respawn time for the guy that's been treated, but I would not want to have the guy continue as if nothing happened, just because someone managed to come up to him. It takes away from the overall casualty impact on the team strength. Just my opinion.

Peer Review: Art of War Op Blood Diamond
 

I have always preferred straight elimination games. It really gives you a sense of accomplishment if you survive. These games are few and far between to much COD instant respawn impatience.

I like conclusions to a game, not constant medic respawn firefight. If a game ends fast reset and do it again and learn from your mistakes.

You do not see guys doing crazy stupid attacks when there is no respawn. And if they do and succeed then they used the appropriate level of initiative and daring to carry it off knowing they could not be medic'd or respawned. That is what makes memories.

that sounds fun for skirmish days, but it would really suck to pay a premium and drive for hours and be the first guy killed and have to wait around for hours to play again lol.... not to mention i almost always give people the benefit of the doubt and call hit when im unsure if i was hit. i wouldnt be doing that for one life lol

Agree, no respawns is a skirmish game, and those would be limited to smaller areas and would end rather quickly, or you risk people waiting for hours to play again. Respawns should be seen as reinforcements, and they don't come too often, forcing you to pick your fights and know when to charge and when to retreat and fight another day.

I've used this insert method for greaseball games in the past and it worked out very well, I also used a similar scenario for "gunships" with a ref acting as "pilot" with 2 players acting as gunners with a fixed flight time (5-10mins). The gun ship was a single "ticket" objective on the field that could be found by either team and used at their discretion (no helo battles)

In both cases I made a couple nerf "whistle rockets" available as objectives (reset after use).

the "HFS!" factor when the gunship came out was great and it was actually taken out with the nerf rockets far more often than I expected.