|
Post by Echelon on Feb 22, 2010 0:21:49 GMT -5
Edit: One more thing- I think MilSim games should require ONE or possibly two camos per team. That means in tan vs green that it's actually tan vs green. So, 3 or 6 color vs woodland or woodland MARPAT. Hell, you can even throw in ACU if you really want. But that would also mean no black or "contractor" loadouts (most people think blue jeans and a black shirt = perfect contractor loadout), and I think it would really help clear up team ID issues. ^^^ This. I think WAY too many people have uber sweet "contractor" loadouts, that are really just black sweatshirts, and snow pants. I also saw some dude with a flek pack on, with realtree camo, and an OD helmet....like wtf? There needs to be regulations for milsim's. After-all, it IS a Military Simulation.
|
|
|
Post by Chaos on Feb 22, 2010 10:33:46 GMT -5
I'd like to see 3 color desert and arid MARPAT for tan and woodland and woodland MARPAT for green. If you have to put ACU and Multicam on a team, throw ACU on tan and Multicam on green.
|
|
|
Post by Dingo™ on Feb 22, 2010 21:56:07 GMT -5
Agreed with Chaos. Simple and very easy...
|
|
|
Post by Echelon on Feb 23, 2010 1:39:47 GMT -5
I also agree with Chaos to an extent. Some should offer more variety, but I do believe MILSIM events should be more limiting, and restrictive with their camo requirements.
Save the "contractor" and realtree for rec games.
|
|
|
Post by Gunny87 on Feb 24, 2010 1:17:53 GMT -5
I'd like to see 3 color desert and arid MARPAT for tan and woodland and woodland MARPAT for green. If you have to put ACU and Multicam on a team, throw ACU on tan and Multicam on green. I like that too. It's simple, the camo patterns are distinct and easy to identify and I think it would work. Obviously in terms of MilSim as I already pointed out when you take green based U.S camos vs U.S based tan based camos and try and designate only one of the teams as the U.S and the other as some other country or force. For the most part it's not going to be very accurate in terms of trying to really simulate factions in a conflict I've actually been doing some research and have found that many countries still use a form of the woodland camo that the U.S had for so long for mission specific camo patterns that was originally copied from the European woodland pattern. So in some cases U.S tan based camo vs a U.S Woodland could technically be somewhat accurate in terms of which country it represents. The problem is you really can't just have woodland without having MARPAT, so then that throws things off. I think I'm the product of two siblings sleeping together.. doy!, I'm still in favor of someone trying to host an event where it's any U.S based camo (both tan and green based) vs anything that's non camo. Which technically could be any and every U.S. force vs a militant group, and it would at least be somewhat accurate in terms of trying to replicate corresponding forces with correct camos. That way you won't see the militant sides using any U.S based camo...
|
|
|
Post by Zorak on Feb 24, 2010 13:20:59 GMT -5
Using green vs tan or camo vs none does require a more careful approach to scenario design if you're playing outdoors in Michigan, though. Woodland and woodland MARPAT blend in with our typical foliage and dirt much better than desert patterns do. Event hosts need to balance that out through tweaking the numbers, objectives, or circumstances of the scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Task Force: Iris on Feb 24, 2010 14:32:49 GMT -5
Kind of, Iris is trying to get to the point of having either 3-color Desert or Woodland nothing else don't ask. This is the way that Lion Claw operates.
And yes your point is extremely valid Zorak, however, only to a point. What I mean by that is Camo doesn't matter as much as it does in real warfare. For instance Iris usually operates with the "Tan" pattern (3-color for us) and we do fairly well in most cases better than our opponents who are in "Green".
I love that you folks want strict camo regulations, if you are going to more forward with this set it up so you get the option of two camo patterns. The two cheep ones are 3-color (or tri-color) for Tan and Woodland for Green. To do this however EVERYONE who runs a MILSIM or ideally a game NEEDS to conform to these regulations.
Having attended out-of-state OPs where they take team uniformity much much more seriously than we do here; I've noticed that everyone having the same uniform makes a HUGE difference in the game. You have a passion for your team and a love for it. Especially when the game is going to run for multiple seasons (i.e. Durbond, and Durbond II). These are large scale MILSIMs and if we could get uniformity of the team uniforms we would love it. Alas people like to wear what they want so we need to sacrifice that to get the numbers. If you notice though we do have it limited as much as possible.
These are just some thoughts on it that TFI has wrestled with, I would love to see this come to fruition.
Cheers,
TFI
|
|
SkyPilot
New Member
Asshat - SkunkWorks Division
Posts: 911
|
Post by SkyPilot on Feb 24, 2010 23:56:56 GMT -5
I disagree the desert colour stand out more. Yes, if you don't know how to use it, but then again, woodland, acu, multi-cam, etc. would stand out too.
I wear tan based 95% of the time, and if tan based colours stood out then I wouldn't be very good at hiding. I've lost count the number of times (in spring and summer) i've had people walk right by and didn't know I was there... and I was wearing 3 colour desert.
But in the end, the camo colour doesn't hide you; one must know how to use it.
As for milsim. Uniforms are mixed...even within the US Military. Not everyone or every service is wearing the same uniform. The Navy, Marines (last i checked), Coast Guard, Airforce, and Army all have different authorized uniforms within the branches. So, to think Milsim is about the same uniforms is wrong.
Reason why Lion Claws operates with 3 colour and woodland is because those uniforms are: 1) unauthorized uniform within the US Military, and 2) plenty-full to obtain and inexpensive.
|
|
|
Post by kaboose1 on Feb 25, 2010 0:20:30 GMT -5
I think, that if the game is Milsim and the teams are USA v Ukraine or something along those lines, the colors should match who uses what. USA would have MARPAT, ACU (Marines and Army) to replicate the main fighting forces. If the US would have a Special Forces section then Multi-cam and DCU would be allowed. For the other team, it would be Woodland BDUs and whatever else they use, but for the sake of argument, lets say BDUs. The only down side to my idea, is that MARPAT and BDU from a distance looks similar. But, it would replicate a real life situation. In real life, the other side doesn't use the opposite color of their enemies, they use whatever color they usually use. And SkyPilot, I know exactly what you are saying with the Tans in a wooded area. I ran an experiment in August and found tans were more successful than green in certain environments.
|
|
|
Post by Dingo™ on Feb 25, 2010 17:07:39 GMT -5
In real life, the other side doesn't use the opposite color of their enemies, they use whatever color they usually use. Thats a good point. Having MARPAT and traditional woodland on two different teams would most definitely make the game interesting. The only problem with that is that there is enough friendly fire as it is, even when the colors are total opposites...
|
|
|
Post by kaboose1 on Feb 25, 2010 19:02:49 GMT -5
Well, I played a game at Realms of Ruin where they messed up with the camouflage selection or something. (The guy that plans it was on vacation) Either way, the teams were really, really mixed up and it was complete MARPAT v everyone else including BDUs and faded MARPAT (don't ask). The game turned out to be amazing. There weren't any friendly fire incidents (that I know of) and the camouflages made for an interesting game. I also was at another game where we used arm bands and it worked out really well.
|
|
|
Post by Task Force: Iris on Feb 26, 2010 10:53:23 GMT -5
I maintain that you keep it to a strict two pattern system. That way you only need two patterns to play any event. I also want to push not using current military patterns for the following reason; most of the people who play, including myself, are not current or former military servicemen and as such have not earned the right to wear those uniforms.
Woodland and Tri-Color are both out of date and have been retired by the military which makes them great for running these games. Tri-Color even has green in it for those of you who are concerned about sticking out to much. As SkyPilot stated, and TFI will echo now, Tan camo dosen't hinder players nearly as much as people are making it seem. I've seen Tan players out flank the entire Green army in Wisconsin. They were just a really good team; color had nothing to do with it.
So, I would once again cast my vote to set camo regulations on these two colors because: They are not currently in use by the United States Military, they are both cheep and readily available, and having two strict patterns sets a standard of uniformity and connectedness that multiple patterns will never have.
I would challenge people in michigan to make this change even if it's just for the upcoming season and see what a difference it makes in your games.
Cheers,
TFI
|
|
|
Post by cqbr on Feb 26, 2010 11:32:01 GMT -5
From what I've gathered from close friends either in or out of the military, is that wearing a camo pattern that is currently being used isn't really disrespectful. However, wearing the rank and unit patches that you didn't earn most definitely is. So for that argument of making DCU's and Woodland the two universal colors based on respect and not being current issue, I don't really agree with. The main thing I don't understand is why everyone that plays has to have everything laid out on a silver platter for them. Before driving out to a game you know which side your going to be playing on be it based on camouflage you own, or just the team you prefer to play on. Once your out on the field you should know where your teammates are, and where your enemy should be coming from. If you don't know if someone your aiming at is on your team or not, you simply do not shoot them until you can make that identification. Everyone wants MilSim and yet in the real world you don't just go shooting at anything you see. You identify if something or someone is an enemy then you make your decision as whether or not your going to shoot. I can understand that playing at larger fields you can get yourself turned around and disoriented, but none of the fields in MI really qualify for that excuse. You also may not be familiar with anyone your playing with and that I can understand as well. Sure many of us are dicks online but we're not going to bite you in person. (Maybe nibble, but not bite) The universal camo thing is somewhat of a good idea, but I think it's gonna take a lot more than that in order to get the level of realism you guys seem to be getting at. You have to remember what your working with. MiA is mostly kids under 17 or 18 (At least it seems that way), those kids aren't really interested in having hardcore MilSim games, they wan't to go out and test their new M4 with stopping power and FMJ's. Then on the other hand, most of the guys that do want the MilSim sit back and procrastinate because things may not work out the way the scenario intended or something of the sort. That and the fact that most MilSim games are indeed 18+ and people over 18 generally have other more important responsibilities to take care of. I do however wish more actions along the lines of making things more uniformed between MilSim-only events would be taken in the future though. It would definitely take things up a notch and would also make things more enjoyable for everyone.. .....I just had a Frank The Tank -vs- James Carville debate moment...What just happened?
|
|
|
Post by Relarz on Feb 26, 2010 11:44:34 GMT -5
Exactly, I don't think ALL milsim games NEED to be just WL vs Tricolor desert, because I'd feel out of place if I was gunfighting a Hamas combatant and he was wearing DCU's with full MOLLE gear.
I'd rather have something like US Army team using only stuff like soft-shells and ACU or Multicam against Taliban/Insurgent team with maybe 1 article of camo clothing, and non-modular load carrying gear. (The same could be supplemented for a Marines team using only MARPAT related items)
I'm honestly tired of the Green v Tan shit. I played with plastic army men as a kid, and even the Army Men games on PS1 and N64. It would be MUCH more realistic to see a guy, and having to ID him as friendly or foe before engaging. I wouldn't mind green vs green. It makes more sense to me anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Gunny87 on Feb 26, 2010 13:12:49 GMT -5
100% agreed with Rel.
That's why I think my idea of ALL U.S. based camo vs non-camo or only limited to one article of camo (whether that be pants, blouse, OR 1 acticle of tactical gear (i.e, chest rig, vest, etc) would end up being the closest thing to a real MilSim experience.
That way when you have a game you can have several U.S Factions playing together wearing woodland or tri-color BDU's, woodland or desert MARPAT, ACU, DCU, & Multicam all representing just ONE faction regardless of whether it's "green" or "tan" based.
I think if Marines operating in Afghanistan wearing desert MARPAT can identify a soldier of the U.S Army that's wearing ACU's or British forces wearing Desert DPM, and any other allied coalition forces out on the field vs a Taliban figher, or some sort of a militant fighter that's not wearing camo then why can't WE be able to have U.S "tan" & "green" camo's all on one team?
If you can't identify if someone is wearing camo or isn't wearing camo, then how are we distinguishing between what's "green" and what's "tan" camo???
And again I mean no disrespect to any of the teams here on MIA or any of our beloved event hosts that do such great jobs to take time out of their lives to host games for us the players (I'm being 100% sincere here guys) because we all know you're doing your best to make things work.
But I just wonder how are we playing a "MilSim" game when we're playing against teams that are designated as either U.S or some foreign country or militants/insurgents, freedom fighters, etc) and they are wearing some sort of U.S. based camo whether it be retired or active?
How is that MilSim???
To end my rant, I just want to say that I again back what Rel is saying and I believe that if you're wearing a U.S based camo whether it's current, or retired, "tan" or "green" you should only be playing on a team that's designated for only the U.S. armed forces....
And if the other team is a militant group, terrorist group, foreign armed forces, or whatever then they should be able to wear any civie loadouts, contractor loadouts, black loadouts, OD based uniforms, CB based uniforms... As long as it isn't a U.S based camo.. (unless there are exceptions)
OR I like what TFI does with the Durbond series games.
If you want to have "tan" vs "green" both using U.S camos then make the forces in play fictional! That way it doesn't even matter which team is using which camo! It's still realistic because it won't conflict with the forces that are in play.
|
|