|
Post by Thor on Jan 2, 2009 11:50:56 GMT -5
I think what he meant was that you may end up with lopsidedness of teams, or that people who live on one side may not be wearing the 'color' of that side, if it were assigned that way. For example, if green were the west side, I'd have no problem because I own woodland and OD. But then again, all my gear is tan. So it goes both ways. I'd just as soon go spend 40 bucks on used 3-color desert and play on the tan team than have problems with being misidentified due to my gear. Plus, I really do need a set anyways, it's fucking leet.
|
|
|
Post by Gunny87 on Jan 2, 2009 13:12:56 GMT -5
Right. Well this is just my opinion but I think it should be done 1 of 2 ways.
1.) Assign the teams from which part of the state the players are actually from regardless of what color camos they have, and if they don't have the designated color that their team is assigned they'll have to go out and buy those camo colors in order to play. (would probably help prevent the teams from being lopsided)
OR
2.) Designate the camo colors to each team then let the players join whichever team they want according to whatever camo colors they have. Or make the players state which colors they have or what not. And then if there are any problems act accordingly.
Now it still must be decided as to the strictness of the camo requirements. Will it just be Green vs tan? Or strictly woodland camo vs 3-color desert?
At this point I don't really care anymore.... I have nothing else to say
|
|
|
Post by Thor on Jan 2, 2009 13:26:04 GMT -5
While it would be pretty awesome to have a Michigan game where everyone is wearing one of two different types of camo, a limited "heavily" green vs "heavily" tan scheme might be more practical.
|
|
|
Post by Relarz on Jan 2, 2009 14:02:39 GMT -5
Or, just restrict it to Woodland vs. Desert. If you don't have a set, then just buy one. It's cheap, and extremely easy to find.
|
|
Slugg
New Member
This gun is for hire.
Posts: 444
|
Post by Slugg on Jan 2, 2009 14:16:33 GMT -5
Or, just restrict it to Woodland vs. Desert. If you don't have a set, then just buy one. It's cheap, and extremely easy to find. Yea I like that. Woodland/tigerstripe vs 3color/6color desert works for me.
|
|
|
Post by Relarz on Jan 2, 2009 15:13:08 GMT -5
... Where did I say tigerstripe and 6 color?
|
|
|
Post by MattyB (Immortal) on Jan 2, 2009 17:08:32 GMT -5
I think he's getting that from Knief & others above. I still think the unambiguous standard of woodland/tiger/woodland marpat vs desert 3, 6, & desert marpat would be fine. I understand the concept that we want to have a minimum standard so that we can reasonably tell who is who, but making it woodland vs desert only goes beyond target i.d. and is being strict just to be strict. I don't believe making camo so strict will have any effect on the quality of the game, everybody already has woodland, even all the paintball guys who like to dress up like rodeo clowns all have a pair of woodlands in the closet someplace. So maybe they have to go buy 3 color desert? Big deal? Having to spend a little extra for the game isn't going to change anything.
If you really want to attack the leniancy issue then make it 18+, I guarantee that will do much more for us than camo restrictions. Or if we're strict just for the sake of being strict, why not make it 18+ anyways?
It's not a huge deal, I don't mean to make a mountain out of a molehill, and I have no prob with getting whatever camo I need (assuming I could even attend, the late April/early May timeframe will be pretty crappy for me thanks to school), for some reason it just rubs me the wrong way to say you can only wear A and B on the basis that we need to tell who is who, when you can accomplish the same result with a less severe standard.
I think if we come up with a few creative ways to enforce squad based play it will solve most of the problems, for example I saw an earlier post in here that said something about not letting people respawn until they had enough guys to make a squad. Maybe it could be set up so there's squads of say 3 to 5 guys, and if more than half get killed the others have to fall back to regroup with their squad (to represent them pulling the wounded to safety?). I think it would be better to find a way to keep the same 3-5 together for the entire game because it makes people more accountable and we can have squad leaders keep track of who was going along with the squad and who took off (other than for repairs/etc).
Add that to a rigid command structure where a commander has a map and his squads report in so he knows where they are and what they see in terms of enemy forces. I mean a dedicated commander too, with a radio operator and maybe another helper or two and they sit back, not necessarily back at base but not in the middle of a firefight (if they can help it) so that they can focus on orchestrating the battle and keeping the squads on task rather than fighting themselves. On the other hand, I guess I don't know how best to motivate people to follow the rigid squad structure except by saying that if they run around like idiots and the enemy is organized they're going to get raped.
|
|
|
Post by Relarz on Jan 2, 2009 18:23:29 GMT -5
I fail to see how you guys hope to achieve/enforce any sort of rigid structure to anything if you're willing to jump through bajillions of hoops just to let in more camo's.
You guys are literally getting too far ahead of yourselves. A simple 2-pattern uniform requirement, US woodland and US Tri-color Desert. Not only will it absolutely impossible to confuse who's on which team, but it will look much nicer aesthetically when one side wears all the same uniform.
The other problem, you cant just FORCE a command structure on people. The event hosts need to select people to lead each team. People who DONT MIND going to an airsoft game and never firing their replica, possibly over the course of a whole weekend.
Once you select those people, then THEY select their asskickers and sub-commanders, or set up an organization however they please.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus Composite on Jan 3, 2009 1:15:03 GMT -5
From my experiences, the problem with camo requirements only comes along when you allow a contractor/civilian type setup, where people are free to mix and match camouflage patterns as they like. As long as you make it a requirement that people wear a full set of whatever camo they choose to come with, I don't believe there'd be any problems. Green-based patterns - woodland, MARPAT, flecktarn, tigerstripe, etc. - on one side, while tan-based patterns - tri-color, six-color, desert MARPAT, etc. - are on the other side.
If you can't tell tan from green, you've got other problems to be worried about. There's no need to limit the game to just two patterns. That's just silly as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Psychosis on Jan 3, 2009 1:22:16 GMT -5
It's not an identification issue, it's a dedication issue. The camo itself is not the problem, but a symptom of the larger one, that people disdain restrictions and rules that actually make for good gameplay.
Half of a good game is the mentality that you're putting some kind of effort into it - money, proper uniforms, long distance travel, etc.
But you know what? Most people in Michigan simply don't care, which I will assume until proven otherwise. If this were a rec game, sure anything could go, but it's beyond that. If we want a great game, we have to be committed to it.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus Composite on Jan 3, 2009 11:30:17 GMT -5
I have no problems with being committed to a great game, and agree with you on most points, but I don't see how having only two patterns helps make for a better game, especially when one of them is a pattern rarely seen in use anymore and which we're only using because it's easy to find and cheap. That's not dedication, that's bending realism to make life easier. If we were to pin down what side represents which forces (i.e. West is Army, East is Marines) and match the camouflage patterns to each side, then I'll certainly be on board with the camo pattern restrictions. As it is, though, I don't believe that it's helping the game in any way.
Not to mention that you can't ask everyone to have a weapon/gear setup that would correctly match the side they're playing on. THAT would make for a truly great game - any sense of realism/milsim goes out the window for me when I see guys in a US kit running around with AKs and G36s. But that's the best part about this game - the ability to dress how you like and use whatever weapon you want.
So, again, as long as people show up in a full uniform of whatever pattern they have, I fail to see how that shows a lack of dedication. It's the people who throw together blue jeans and a woodland top and call it "contractor" that you should be worried about keeping out, not the guy who wants to wear a nice MARPAT or ACU setup to play in.
|
|
|
Post by Relarz on Jan 3, 2009 22:21:50 GMT -5
The point remains the same. Guns vary per soldier, but when the US Whatever-th Infantry division is in combat, they all have the same uniform.
The point of each side only wearing one pattern is so that you look like a real uniformed force rather than showing up with one guy wearing tigerstripe, one guy wearing flecktarn, and one guy wearing woodland.
At this point, I don't care anymore what patterns it is. As long as one team is restricted to ONE uniform, and the other team is restricted to one other uniform that's easy to distinguish from the first team's stuff.
Why are you guys so relentlessly trying to defend having multiple uniforms per team? It looks ragtag, and detracts from the aesthetic feel.
One reason woodland and 3-color desert were suggested were because they are, in fact, cheap and easy to get. Another reason was that we aren't trying to make it UBER SUPER DELTAZORZ milsim. It's simply East versus West.
When a sports team sets foot on someone else's court/field/park/rink, they don't show up half wearing the home colors, one quarter wearing the away colors, and the last quarter wearing some totally unrelated team's uniforms that "look similar/have the same colors". They all wear the same uniform.
[shadow=red,left,300][glow=red]It's what a team does[/glow] [/shadow]
I literally can't make it clearer than that.
|
|
|
Post by Great Troub of Troubistan on Jan 3, 2009 22:44:47 GMT -5
I have no problems with being committed to a great game, and agree with you on most points, but I don't see how having only two patterns helps make for a better game, especially when one of them is a pattern rarely seen in use anymore and which we're only using because it's easy to find and cheap. That's not dedication, that's bending realism to make life easier. If we were to pin down what side represents which forces (i.e. West is Army, East is Marines) and match the camouflage patterns to each side, then I'll certainly be on board with the camo pattern restrictions. As it is, though, I don't believe that it's helping the game in any way. Not to mention that you can't ask everyone to have a weapon/gear setup that would correctly match the side they're playing on. THAT would make for a truly great game - any sense of realism/milsim goes out the window for me when I see guys in a US kit running around with AKs and G36s. But that's the best part about this game - the ability to dress how you like and use whatever weapon you want. So, again, as long as people show up in a full uniform of whatever pattern they have, I fail to see how that shows a lack of dedication. It's the people who throw together blue jeans and a woodland top and call it "contractor" that you should be worried about keeping out, not the guy who wants to wear a nice MARPAT or ACU setup to play in. Optimus, you're focusing way too much on the camouflages being used and not enough on the general point of it. Its not the point of which two camouflages we use. Its the point that we stick with one camouflage per team. It makes life easier for all parties involved this way. There is really no point for you to argue against it. If you wanna talk about contractor loadouts, then this solution would solve that problem too. If we only allow one uniform per team, then there would be no contractor loadout. There would only be Woodland vs Desert, ACU vs MARPAT, Khaki vs Green, etc etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus Composite on Jan 4, 2009 3:49:48 GMT -5
The fact that I disagree with you guys doesn't really matter, and I'll probably show up to play regardless of how the camouflage situation gets sorted out. In the sake of not extending this discussion, I'll ignore the holes in your argument and call it good. I'm merely stating that limiting each side to one pattern, in my opinion, does absolutely nothing to enhance the realism of an event in any way, shape, or form. If you disagree, cool.
|
|
|
Post by GrinchBiscuit on Jan 4, 2009 4:19:56 GMT -5
I'll ignore the holes in your argument and call it good. Where are the holes in their arguments? If anything your argument has holes. What Rel and Psy are suggesting is simple. Look like a team and not A rag tag bunch of guys in a clusterfuck of cammies. That can be alleviated simply by using a basic color to use for your loadout. OD, Khaki, etc. Thus your prepared for all sorts of events and requirments. So what if your not wearing your MARPAT or ACU for one game? And if you are that kind of person, I have seen numerous photos of SF guys wearing DCU and Woodycam as late as this summer. Once again, your argument is flawed. I can provide photo evidence that your claims are pretty stupid. I cite the example of Ramadi in which SEALs were working with Army types. Guess what they wore? ACU. Simply put, standing out can get you killed. I have also seen a pic of an AFSOC guy working with Germans. He was wearing Tropentarn. Shocking. If I were looking at a bunch of guys in ACU from a hidden position and saw one or two in DCU. I might think that those other guys are a bit more important. So, in fact a single cammie pattern for a team is a very realistic situatuion. And lastly: I will respond with a quote: The End. Love, GBiscuit.
|
|