three things to consider for the Berget Crew.

Feedback e debriefings from Berget 7.
User avatar
Brujo
Berget Master Trustee
Berget Master Trustee
Posts: 645
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 11:42
Location: Slovenia
Contact:

Post by Brujo » 07 Jul 2009, 08:02

I can already predict entire NATO companies going AWOL and forming their own game... it's a tempting idea but I would still prefer RoE within the game rules so everyone would either comply or cheat... and the RoE should be formed in a waythat no unit lacks much action.

Which I believe was the case also with the three kings, the problem was imo the layout. NATO was supposed to come in between the three armed factions and intervene.

Instead the very first feaure on the ground was BC. And yes, there were always some red or gray or yellow people inside or on the way in, hence the confusion and warcrimes :twisted:

NATO never had much chance getting in between SRP/ORC or MT/ORC. That entire show was far from their area.

So NATO player behaviour is a quite logical consequence of the layout but then again, organizers can never make it perfect.
B5 - Soviet VDV Battalion Commander
B6 - NATO Battalion Commander
B7 - Orlov's Plt CO
B8 - Poldavian 3rd Mountaineers
B10 - Poldavian 15th Sappers Commander
Airsoft Klub Salamander - Slovenia

User avatar
Kaiser
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 58
Joined: 09 Mar 2009, 20:15
Location: Lisbon - Portugal

Post by Kaiser » 07 Jul 2009, 16:15

A InGame Court Martial.

Do not forget that there are lots of reasons for a player going rogue/AWOL, etc...

Those reasons must be heard, and put in to consideration.

Some of the players that went "off" were because different reasons, and the CM can't be a punishing kind only for the Soldier.

Sometimes, bad command makes a soldier go rogue, so if a player turns into one, every aspect shall be considered, and if proven, the Command of his unit shall be punished as well.
Image

PORTUGUESE EXPEDITIONARY FORCES
B.E.7
FOX COY 1.1 Squad Leader
B.E.8
3rd NAF Rangers

!It's not how it starts... it's how it ends that matters!"

User avatar
Tiger_1
Berget Trustee
Berget Trustee
Posts: 906
Joined: 26 Nov 2007, 13:14
Location: Norway

Post by Tiger_1 » 07 Jul 2009, 16:50

Punishment will not be a way to solve this. Players just need to be told what level of commitment and roleplay/milsim is required of them for their faction, and then have insight enoght to say "this is(is not) for me" and then respect that. Any ingame form of punshiment will only cause problems, and will ruin the game for everyone.
Berget events needs to be honest with the players about what Berget is, so players that cant take being part of a structured military unit that NATO is can do something else.
And players that can not deal with being part of something that is larger then them selfs, should not come to Berget, as that is about 1300 people having fun, not just them!
"go to your God like a soldier!"

User avatar
Brujo
Berget Master Trustee
Berget Master Trustee
Posts: 645
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 11:42
Location: Slovenia
Contact:

Post by Brujo » 07 Jul 2009, 18:06

Tiger_1 wrote:And players that can not deal with being part of something that is larger than themselves, should not come to Berget, as that is about 1300 people having fun, not just them!
+1, good quote!
B5 - Soviet VDV Battalion Commander
B6 - NATO Battalion Commander
B7 - Orlov's Plt CO
B8 - Poldavian 3rd Mountaineers
B10 - Poldavian 15th Sappers Commander
Airsoft Klub Salamander - Slovenia

User avatar
motorhead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 351
Joined: 22 Mar 2008, 15:25
Location: Hönefoss, Norway

Post by motorhead » 07 Jul 2009, 20:03

Brujo wrote:
Tiger_1 wrote:And players that can not deal with being part of something that is larger than themselves, should not come to Berget, as that is about 1300 people having fun, not just them!
+1, good quote!
Sound very good indeed - the big mystery is to get that system to actually work. Airsofters are coming from miniscule clubs and most not familiar with each others mindsets or the milsim concept. Therefore the big-scale Batallion size units Berget require are doomed to fail unless the same Batallion-size airsoft unit is organized as a milsim unit - with specially motivated and group-thinking airsofters.

Basically Berget is growing out of its shoes already at 1300 participants.
How the Berget formula should work at 2000 players next year is beyond me to understand. There are simply too many different mindsets at large and the ingame batallion airsoft leaders don't have any realistic timeframe to make their units cohesive. All they can hope for is that their fellow unit airsofters have bothered to read the forum tips - show up at the game site and basically cross their fingers.

At best they have some sort of uniform and gear code.
Tiger_1 wrote:Berget events needs to be honest with the players about what Berget is, so players that cant take being part of a structured military unit that NATO is can do something else.
I'd be surprised to see NATO as an ingame faction at B8, to be honest.
There's no way such a politically structured and mandate bound unit can be roleplayed in such a big airsoft-game unless there's some basic coherency and structure.

The so called ingame NATO-leadership can at best only appeal to their ingame units, but not really function as a plausible batallion unit. The game infrastructure (bad radio equipment, failing repeater, inadequate GM corps, stretched logistics etc.) speaks against having such a big ingame unit ever function in an airsoft context.

I hope to be wrong :-)

One solution would be to allow the first game day for game preparations ONLY, personell selection, unit setup and unit training. With a motivated and coherent batallion staff and COY leadership an airsoft batallion woud have a fair chance of functioning for a couple of days afterwards.

The basic idea being that such a big unit can only be composed of group-thinking airsofters with the same game understanding. I have severe doubts if such a selection process can be done.

There should also be routinely performed public adress sessions every day to sort out game understanding, motivational info sharing and measures to be corrected. Some people wanted to see more of us at HQ during the game days, but frankly we were bogged down just handling the message traffic, taking decisions and running the game.

As said. We're about to reach critical size and mass in airsoft-event management. I'd rather say we've already passed that point and need to scale down the event to 1000 participants so the ingame units can be handled better by their respective ingame commanders.

Both ingame NATO and Milo's nearly had mutiny this year. That's signals to be taken seriously.
Motörhead, SBA, Norway
B6: NATO, Oscar COY, 3rd PLT, 3rd squad
B7: NATO S6 - smoke signal operator
B8: Pol. 3rd Mount. S6/Liaison - ditto
B9: Pol. 3rd Mount. Com dude - ditto
B10: On leave
B11: Hot Dog

User avatar
NIN
Berget Crew
Berget Crew
Posts: 414
Joined: 04 Dec 2006, 12:40
Location: H?rn?sand

Post by NIN » 07 Jul 2009, 21:55

This discussion you are having is being read by numerous airsofters from all parts of the world. This could result in more players get to see how their ingame actions can make the game less enjoyable for their fellow airsofter.

This could lead to more players adapting their way of thinking and acting when coming to Berget. Lets face it, its more than just a sunday scirmish. Everyone coming to Berget has a responsibility to themselves. team, nation and faction.

Once this discussion has reached an end we (Berget-Events) will go over all arguments and see what alterations we implement to make the game even better for everyone.

I want to thank many of you for an interesting thread that has given me alot to think about concerning very valid issues. Your time and feedback is pure gold.
Churn/HQ Berget 11
Gamemaster Berget 9-10
Head of security Berget 6-8r
GM Spetznas Berget 5
Master SF, Berget 3
Tjetcheny Rebels Berget 2
Project Assistant Berget 1

User avatar
motorhead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 351
Joined: 22 Mar 2008, 15:25
Location: Hönefoss, Norway

Post by motorhead » 07 Jul 2009, 22:03

NIN wrote:Lets face it, its more than just a sunday scirmish. Everyone coming to Berget has a responsibility to themselves. team, nation and faction.
Now we're talking. Couldn't have said it better.
Motörhead, SBA, Norway
B6: NATO, Oscar COY, 3rd PLT, 3rd squad
B7: NATO S6 - smoke signal operator
B8: Pol. 3rd Mount. S6/Liaison - ditto
B9: Pol. 3rd Mount. Com dude - ditto
B10: On leave
B11: Hot Dog

User avatar
LukeAR
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 88
Joined: 09 Apr 2009, 22:11
Location: Israel
Contact:

Post by LukeAR » 07 Jul 2009, 22:55

I'd also like to add - that BE crew - should atleast give in general guide lines before ticket release a bit recap of what the roles of each faction are and what will the levels of in-game dedication will each faction need.

what do i mean? in B7 i felt that nato needed 5/5 milsim and 2/5 Role play. Had i known that earlier - i might have chosen a different side which has more emphasis on role play because that was one of my expectations from berget (After all - most of NATO forces had little if no interaction what-so-ever with the LARP elements in bashir and in the game). If i'm no mistaken NATO was not allowed in bashir city for most of the game (except MPs) and thus didn't have a chance to experience it.

OR make more role playing possibilities (for all sides) besides the milsim.
Berget 9 - NAF 3rd Rangers.
Berget 8 - NAF 5th Infantry.
Berget 7 - NATO, INDIA 2-2 comms NCO.

User avatar
Majk
Berget Crew
Berget Crew
Posts: 181
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 21:38
Location: H?rn?sand

Post by Majk » 07 Jul 2009, 23:16

LukeAR wrote:If i'm no mistaken NATO was not allowed in bashir city for most of the game (except MPs) and thus didn't have a chance to experience it.
No fraction was allowed to enter BC armed without weapons permit.

Did yo try to enter BC unarmed or with weapons held high?
-> viewtopic.php?t=5330

There were no restrictions from B-E against NATO visiting BC unarmed. If so, that have to do with in-game orders made up by fraction CO's, not any doing of B-E Game Masters.
Chief of Security, Berget 13-16
Game Management, Berget 6-12
CO/Game Master SF, Berget 3 & 5
Recon for Gen. Crashek, Berget 4
CO Tjetcheny Rebels, Berget 2
Project Assistant, Berget 1

User avatar
Kartoon
Berget Trustee
Berget Trustee
Posts: 157
Joined: 17 May 2008, 14:49
Location: Finland

Post by Kartoon » 07 Jul 2009, 23:26

One thing I think would be a nice addition for the ticked buying engine is a language skill level test. A question that requires a person to know a certain amount of english. I personally had a few encounters with players that knew only some or no english at all. Of course it sort of adds to the game play that you need interpreters but in general it would be best for everybody to be able to communicate with each other.

Of course it already says so in the game rules (doesn't it?) that you must speak english to an understandable level, but lets face it, rules are only written or spoken text and can be easily bent or ignored. It goes to all the good tips on this thread, that adding a new rule wont fix a problem. One needs to look for a way to actually correct the issue rather than jsut incorporate it on the rules and then just blaim it on an individual for breaking the rule. By then the shit has already hit the fan when it should be the goal to prevent these two from meeting. :D
Mikko Läntinen
Berget 6 - SRP, XO
Berget 7 - SRP, XO
Berget 8 - Poldavian 1st Infantry
Berget 9 - The Firm - Operations manager

Berget 15 - FinBat XO

User avatar
MrMedic
Berget Trustee
Berget Trustee
Posts: 307
Joined: 20 Jun 2008, 01:34
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by MrMedic » 07 Jul 2009, 23:48

I feel that the creation of Bashir City and the subsequent centralization of much of the plot to that setting has moved Berget a whole lot closer to a LARP, and further away from a milsim event. This has a lot of consequnces that we are seeing here.

In a LARP a lot of the stuff that the "rogue" Nato troopers did are in fact highly commendable. Good roleplaying, great improvization and a massive amount of spin-off stories and events. Of course their great effort should have been handled by their superiors by roleplaying right back at them. Anything else is a waste of good intrigue.

In a Milsim the Rogue Nato troopers actions are highly counterproductive. Detrimental to unit coherency, not according to ROE and inconsiderate to the rest of NATO, as it altered the entire course of Nato strategy in and around Bashir.

In a LARP getting kicked out of your unit and being forced to approach other factions to ensure your survival is not a "punishment" it is a great starting point for some really cool roleplaying.

In a Milsim getting kicked out of your unit is a good reason to pack your stuff up and go home, probably never to return.

Now me myself I am much more a LARPer than a MilSim player. In no way do I want to promote one or the other as being better. I simply have a history of roleplaying that far surpasses my Milsim experience. Being aware of this I am constantly evaluating my actions to make sure that I do not cross over into pure roleplaying, since I know that that would ruin things for a lot of other players.

So when you read my half-brained idea about deserters/special armbands please keep in mind that I wouldnt mind being put through that treatment myself if I chose to do something that merits it. I do not consider it an off-game punishment, I consider it a plot generator.

But I understand those who feel that the whole idea is highly destructive and who would get angry at being court-martialled.

User avatar
Kartoon
Berget Trustee
Berget Trustee
Posts: 157
Joined: 17 May 2008, 14:49
Location: Finland

Post by Kartoon » 08 Jul 2009, 00:13

I think it would hardly be of anyones interest or benefit to further complicate the relations between the set factions in the game, let alone bring a new one in to the game and not even preset their take on the other factions but let them come up with their own game plans.

Also lets be careful with the use of the term Milsim. Why?
Lets assume that a person reading this has some military background. He automatically has a certain idea on what a military simulation would be so he's set up for the game. Great, huh? Now there's another guy from another part of the world where military operations or training will not resemble other militaries' patterns by far, wouldn't he then have a whole different mindset towards the whole term milsim? To further mix it up we have some 1000 players with no military background whatsoever who mostly get their inspirations and ideas from news bulletins from Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia or whatnot current or past conflicts. All of them have some idea of what milsim could be, but still a lot of variations excist. So now we have a 1500 players with only 674 different approaches to the whole milsim concept. "This is a milsim event, everybody on the same page? Game on!"

This isn't milsim. It's not LARP either, nor a weekend skirmish. It's a Berget game.

Also, what part of milsim excludes LARP? If milsim = simulating a military operation, shouldn't it simulate relations with indigenous civilians as well.

I hope not to derail the discussion with this post, but I just hate these different terms be raped on the forum when people don't necessarily have same expectations towards the concepts behind them.
Mikko Läntinen
Berget 6 - SRP, XO
Berget 7 - SRP, XO
Berget 8 - Poldavian 1st Infantry
Berget 9 - The Firm - Operations manager

Berget 15 - FinBat XO

User avatar
motorhead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 351
Joined: 22 Mar 2008, 15:25
Location: Hönefoss, Norway

Post by motorhead » 08 Jul 2009, 01:27

Kartoon wrote: This isn't milsim. It's not LARP either, nor a weekend skirmish. It's a Berget game.
And that's the beauty of Berget - you can combine LARP, milsim and airsoft gaming into an advanced cocktail of events and spinoff storys.
The balance between milsim and LARP is difficult, as it's quite correct to describe milsim and LARP as two different aspects of the same airsoft gaming concept.

We may consider another aspect: Maybe we should let the different faction commanders and their staff pre-condition the game premises in collaboration with Berget-Events beforehand? That is; describe unit functions, describe their mandates and recruit suitable airsofters therein. Officially on the Berget website some months in advance of the game.
( B6 and B7 have both shown the limitations of pre-game forum planning only. )

That way the ingame units may function better than B7. The achilles heel of Berget is IMHO high leadership turnover and fragile ingame unit structure. Better get that formula working before increasing beyond 1000 players.

P.S. There is a considerable challenge in timing though, as the ticket sale allow people to select factions long before respective commanders are stepping forward and are approved by BE.
Motörhead, SBA, Norway
B6: NATO, Oscar COY, 3rd PLT, 3rd squad
B7: NATO S6 - smoke signal operator
B8: Pol. 3rd Mount. S6/Liaison - ditto
B9: Pol. 3rd Mount. Com dude - ditto
B10: On leave
B11: Hot Dog

User avatar
Geboren
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 174
Joined: 24 Nov 2008, 13:51
Contact:

Post by Geboren » 08 Jul 2009, 02:31

Majk wrote: There were no restrictions from B-E against NATO visiting BC unarmed. If so, that have to do with in-game orders made up by fraction CO's, not any doing of B-E Game Masters.
That's right. Fox 2-1 went to BC and took pictures with the girls :D .

We presented us at the Police of BC, they "confiscated" our weapons, we went into BC because we wanted to see the City before the end of the game, like turists yes. :lol:

We had fun, done some LARP with the priest and other guys, really fun.

Maybe the fact is that small units or little squads that come to Berget are not well briefed with the ROE of being NATO.

Maybe the problem is that soldiers don't have enough informations on what's happening, who's hostile, who's actually not, what should you do/not do with people/civilian/prisoners/etc.

The chain of command was good on NATO side I thought, HQ did a very good job. But chain of informations was not perfect. I know that's not easy to inform everyone of the situation, especially when they are on the field at different moments.

Coy commanders had meetings as I remember. Why not doing it with Platoon leaders too? After that, it's easier to bring the information to the platoon, etc etc etc.

But all of this doesn't concern Berget crew, it's up to Nato HQ and also all NATO players to be more prepared to be in their role. My 2 cents anyway :)
http://www.oda541.com

B7 NATO Foxtrot 2 platoon leader
B8 NATO Foxtrott
B10 POL 3d Mountaineers 3d Coy, 1st Plt Leader
B11 Blood Ravens Recon Platoon Leader

User avatar
Seraph
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
Posts: 27
Joined: 14 Dec 2008, 23:39

Post by Seraph » 08 Jul 2009, 04:14

motörhead: Milsim and RP are often the same. In milsim you assume the character of a soldier or other individual that you might not be in real life. You need to act and think accordingly, hence you roleplay that character. All the other aspects of making a game realistic also involve RP. So, RP is most definitely a part of Milsim and shouldn't really be separated from it. However, the extent that you have to RP in milsim depends on what position you have. As a grunt, the RP doesn't really have to go further than obeying orders and not do things that a real soldier wouldn't do. As a commander the level might be higher as he/she is going to be more prominent. To sum things up, RP is about acting something you're not. Seeing that most people aren't the soldiers they pretend to be they are effectively roleplaying even if they do not claim to do so. I think it's not wise to separate two elements that are in fact the same.

Post Reply