[m102404]

Originally Posted by whisper_kill

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

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

Originally Posted by CR0M

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

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

Originally Posted by Conker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by ZackTheRipperC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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