Tankwitch wrote:Armbands can be realistic in certain situations. Look at the one time communist rebel group "FARC." Both sides used the same weapons and uniforms so they identified themselves with large armbands. Friendly fire was a big problem in that conflict.
I actually don't have a problem with Armbands as part of a uniform requirement if it makes sense. Like in the case Tankwitch, has made above. If it's called for because of realism and aides the event host in team selection, then I'm all for it, but in the case of only one team wears white shemags, that's penalizing that team for no reason...
Also I like the fact that you followed you statement up wit "Friendly fire was a big problem in that conflict" because it's almost like living proof that ARMBANDS DON'T WORK!
I thought I was clear about the fact that I agree that new players need games. That new players in both large and small groups need time to learn the game and learn their individual play style. I'm not saying we shouldn't give them their day(s) in the sun and allow them to find their way. But that doesn't mean that an event host has to hold their hand and baby them the whole way. Event hosts that expect more out of their players are the ones that put on the bigger and better events. Event hosts that host to the lowest common denominator, their event will never get any better because they are not pushing their players to better themselves. Their players won't learn Positive Target Identification, if it's never expected of them. I know for a fact that "requirements" is not a work I use, and it's not something I expect from anyone. (Hell most people cant make it to a game with the "required" death rag, why should I assume they will make it with anything else?) I'm not asking hosts to require uniforms, as a matter of fact I talked about using civilian clothing as a pattern for helping to lump teams together. This way players get to work on and hone their target identification skills and it helps them better themselves.
You touched on the fact that not all airsofters are into Mil-sim or Tac-soft, and I agree there are many reasons that players play airsoft. But why play airsoft over say paintball, or Lazertag, and that comes back to the realism of it. From what I have seen most people are drawn to airsoft because they enjoy the realistic aspects of Airsoft, over those of say paintball or lazertag. Weather that's the realism of the weapons themselves, the way airsoft make military history more real for them (PS I'm assuming your talking about Vietnam or WW2 airsofters or re-enactors here and they are notorious for having staunch requirements for their events) even most of the defectors from paintball that I have talked to say they like airsoft because it's more realistic and they enjoy it's use of higher level of field tactics. I'm not limiting airsoft to one idea, I'm saying that for most people the enjoyment of airsoft all stems from the same place, realism. And the more a host can do to push his games to a more realistic feel the more people seem to enjoy it.
Which sounds like a better game:
A: "hold point X for 5 min's and then leave and your team get 10 points"
B: "You have to move to point X, hold it for 5 min's while the bomb is set and then exfil. Once your last man is out the bomb goes off and your team gets 10 points"
It's the same game, but the realism of the story makes players want to play. If you set up a sound effect of a bomb that goes off when they exfil it's all the more amazing and fun for the players.
Realism is what drives airsoft.
