How Long Should a Milsim Be - 18hr or 12hr

[CR0M]

I dont want the Onus on the players to make the game. Its gotta be the host. Thats like me, having a party and only providing the venue, and hoping it turns out good. A better host would get a keg, music, maybe food.


Complaining about the people who leave a boring game early, is weird. Give them a reason to stick around until the end and they will

[Janus]

I ain't saying a proper host is providing a field and setting up an 18 hour game of capture the flag and hoping someone is bringing a flag. They definitely bring the props, pyro, food and story.

HOW the players negotiate their way through those things on the field is up to the players, though. I'm not saying they have to bring the setting of the game. They have to bring HOW they play the game with them and that's where I believe the difference is.

I've seen two teams play against each other with completely different styles. One side scattered and played with no organization at all, just gagglefucking with no plan. The other side organized and communicated, had a clear chain of command and leader, contingencies and such with an overall plan. Contact reports were passed up, orders were passed down. You can guess which side was subjected to a thorough seal clubbing.

That's why I say milsim is what is brought by the players. I might meet you halfway though and say the players are equally responsible for the milsim aspect of the game. I mean, what good is a bitchin' scenario when you get a dozen randomly-firing newfags who show up in jeans and t-shirts all of who are carrying stock sniper rifles and they crap out in three hours because they're getting plowed hard and put away wet?

[ThunderCactus]

^you mean like claybank? lol
poor green

[Ricochet]

That was my point as well. Players are the ones who really make it what it is, no matter how well or poor it's organized. It all starts with a serious game organizer putting in the effort though.

[CR0M]

Its the night time where things fall apart. I've always like the games where ammo is provided and very limited. If you keep the ammo extremely limited at night, you can put objectives into place where players who dont have NV will stay in the action.

But if you have guys with NV with full ammo walking around, the balance is so out of wack its no wonder players lose interest.

athena 2 was so dark at night that I couldnt see my hand in front of my face, but game controll had missions all night, so regardless of the fact that most people didnt have NV, everybody was still engaged in the action because the hosts kept everyone busy with something to do...

[Rabbit]

If its going to be a milsim - hosts need to provide the ammo and incorporate it into the sign up fee. Its almost a sure fire way of avoiding the sim turning into a skirmish.

Some of the most fun ive had were the games where i barely finished one mag. It was always a constant question wether an engagement was worth the ammo.

As a response to some of the above - the host makes the game, the players only contribute a more enjoyable expirience.

This upcoming year i know me and my guys are going to picking our major events more carefully.

[Ricochet]

The ammo thing is tough. I've been at sims with one single, concentrated firefight lastng over four hours. Also, many people will only run certain ammo types through their guns, brand, weight, etc. What happens if a host doesn't have what you need, or you run out mid game?

[Dracheous]

People keep bringing up that the missions may be too long and cite that people leave or stop fighting early. That's PART of the MILSIM. Look, if you want a proper milsim there is no respawn point at all. You show up, you get your mission file, and you try to carry it out; get hit pack your shit up and go home cause you're dead.

But that would suck when a game is supposed to fill up 18-24hr of game play and you get smoked an hour in.


Because we want to keep gaming you have respawns that simulate fresh reinforcements. SEND IN THE CLONES! But no matter how well equipped a military may be, reinforcements are not a constant and do diminish over time. Even gorilla/militia groups can't keep the bodies flowing and often these are countries where breeding is a requirement similar to taxes.

We also tend to forget that the majority of airsofters don't have gym memberships or know how to do a proper squat, pushup, or plank. So it is only natural that they thin out as the battle wears on for 18hrs. Even the fittest guys/gals out there are going to slow down after 3-4hr fire fighting; specially running back and forth respawning. Seriously, dying in airsoft is often the most taxing exercise you'll do all day; well if your plan is to get back into the fight right away.


Back in the Rawdon days one thing was clear, the game constantly needed to be changed as it progressed. The Organizers kept changing objectives as the day wore on; taking into account the number of people that were phasing from the bases to the camp/safe zones, where firefights were never ending, which objectives showed stalemate, and then plugging that all together to inspire forces to relocate, reorganize, and assault the shit out of something else. Letting a firefight last for half the day on ONE objective is not conducive to inspiring those retreating from the heat and exhaustion at the camp area to get back in the fray. Accept that the one side has held this spot long enough that they are unlikely to be pushed out shortly and change their objective so that holding that position is now counterproductive to them! Bam; now that hornets nest you been trying to sneak into, is buzzing up a shit storm.



The real world doesn't have a pause button, game shark, or cheat sheets to configure any battle to go any way or the other; with the exception of precision artillery, airstrikes, and CAS, that is all hand of god shit right there! It will not matter the length of the game, even pushing through a FULL 24hr of stale no contact, no movement, no comms game can have it's merit. But it's when shit goes sideways do the war stories you remember get written.

Best game ever was half our OWN team took off and left a force of us outnumbered 4-1; ammo became a big concern there! And we had to hold a base OP while what was left of the team scouted out and hit other objectives; because if we lost the base it was game over, if we didn't hit the other objectives it was just a slow death loss.

Speaking of ammo; it seems strange to me for organizers to impose field ammo only, and want people ready for 24hr of fighting. The course can be so different for different roles. A RECCE team can show up with 3 mags and have plenty to spare; but when the situation goes sideways that can change FAST! But every time I saw this I noted that it became clear that the ammo would not last; specially when you have a few SAWs kicking around. Nothing worse than the game comes to a grinding halt because you can't engage because the ammo is gone half way into the game.

Weight and type restrictions always made sense though; as that's simple for anyone to know in advance and make quick tuning adjustments to hop-ups and such to use the requested ammo.



No Milsim is a proper game with out a massive bon fire with beer flowing the night before followed by a massive BBQ and additional beer flow at game end. Full stop, that's a rule, not accepting this is like suggesting Bacon is not a food group!

[FirestormX]

Originally Posted by Ricochet

"If you boys can capture X by midnight, then hot dogs for your squad..."

That would probably be one of the greatest motivators to get shit done. I recommend that all game hosts incorporate this into their milsims immediately!

[Ricochet]

We did a small scale sim like this, abd it worked great. We had other things like, completing X before night vision was unlocked, abd the like. It worked out pretty well. On that note, I wouldn't use something like night vision as a perk again. Many players pay a small fortune for their NVGs, and only get a couple times a year to use it, so maybe something else, next time. Also having a safety stand down, and game update may work. Stop for an hour, and have everyone re-provision themselves, nap, get objective updates, etc. Honestly though, perhaps having a mandatory rack-time might work. Every team must put 1/3 of their force to rack between such and such a time, then another 1/3, then the remainder. Intelligent commanders will do this anyways. Having a few thermoset full of hot coffee for those waking up after a two hour nap might be a good idea as well. Always have a legitimate rest area. Having your guys sleep at an objective is risky, and won't really allow them the rest they need. Unless it's like some games I've been to, wgere we were expected to wake up during an attack, abd join in the fight each time. There's always options. Honestly though, one of the best things about sims is harassing the enemy while they are trying to sleep. Keep 'em beat, keep 'em tired.

[Dracheous]

Originally Posted by Ricochet

"If you boys can capture X by midnight, then hot dogs for your squad...

Make it beer and bacon and I'll clear 100 mother&#$!ers out of any feild by Midnight

[Hectic]

I think there is nothing wrong with long duration games. milsim is intended to be a full emerssion into what it is to be in an actuall combat situation. The first 6-10 hours prety much serves to get you so burnt and stressed out that you want to give up. Then, and only then are you in a simaler mindset to what those in real combat deal with on the regular. This is when your team, and command plays a huge roll in keeping you motivated, showing you that little glimmer of hope that keeps you all pushing forward for the common goal, victory, not victory in the sence of winning (tho that is nice) victory in that everyone make it out together at the end, having overcome difficult odds in harsh conditions. Then gathering around at the end with good friends and foes and having some good stories to tell over a well deserved hearty meal and some recreational indulgence.
One of my first real events was a milsim, it was OP wearwolf. It was a bit of a cluster fuck, i wont get into it fully, those who were there know how it played out. But at the end of it all we sat around a big ole bonfire after a massive feast got a lil tipsy and told "war stories" well into the wee hours. Did we win, hell no, and it may have been designed that way, but one thing is for sure, at the end of it all both sides had fun working together and against eachother regardless of some questionable thing.
Kind of like art of war, after 32 hours there were some tough times on both sides, but we all played heard and for the most part had slot of fun doing it.
My vote is for 18-48 hours (tho we havent evolved to the 48 stuff quite yet, i can only think of a handfull of guys who could/would do that)
The main problem with milsim today (and i know im not that oldschool, but i did come in at a time when alot of the "old timers" were still around) is that far too many skirmishers sign up not fully aware of what they are in for.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

A "milsim" should be long enough to achieve the goals of the scenario Designer. I have found that creating a scenario with defined Missions with discrete time limitations written in permits participants to better manage their energy.

At the just past Operation Woodsman, I had written a 36 hour scenario with 8 discrete Missions. Each Faction , ( there were three, Allied forces , German Forces , Partisans ) had their own missions and Objectives and Timings . Missions were 3-5 hours in duration and had forced rest periods of 2-4 hours between missions. I had no one drop out.

In my opinion this format works very well, it was also employed at our D-Day event organised by Leccas .. and worked very well , That event was 24 hours duration, no one dropped out.

It is a lot more preparation work, Written mission orders have to be prepared in advance. You can also prepare alternate missions depending on the outcome of previous missions.

This format in my opinion creates a context and structure that ensures that units remain cohesive and focused on task. It also prevents events from devolving into an interminable skirmish over the same ground.

[Ricochet]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

A "milsim" should be long enough to achieve the goals of the scenario Designer. I have found that creating a scenario with defined Missions with discrete time limitations written in permits participants to better manage their energy.

At the just past Operation Woodsman, I had written a 36 hour scenario with 8 discrete Missions. Each Faction , ( there were three, Allied forces , German Forces , Partisans ) had their own missions and Objectives and Timings . Missions were 3-5 hours in duration and had forced rest periods of 2-4 hours between missions. I had no one drop out.

In my opinion this format works very well, it was also employed at our D-Day event organised by Leccas .. and worked very well , That event was 24 hours duration, no one dropped out.

It is a lot more preparation work, Written mission orders have to be prepared in advance. You can also prepare alternate missions depending on the outcome of previous missions.

This format in my opinion creates a context and structure that ensures that units remain cohesive and focused on task. It also prevents events from devolving into an interminable skirmish over the same ground.

Sort of like a choose-your-own-adventure? Go left and this happens, go right and that happens. This was a similar design that I wished to use for a game. Predetermined pathways and obstacles based upon mission outcomes.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Elements of the choose your own adventure can be included, but mostly it's about offering a variety of mission types within the same event.

When I write a scenario I want it to be a cohesive story that is realistic and is immersive.

Some call this kind of thing "roleplaying" but in my opinion this is exactly what military simulation is about. People take on the role of a soldier, and they play that role with as much realism as they can.

This adds to the immersion of everyone