the 'multi faceted' weekender WWII battle.

Sounds good. I imagine you would then post each squad's structure in advance, with players applying for specific roles before the event? E.g.

British 1st Squad
1) Corporal (SMG, grenades)
2) RTO (rifle, backpack radio)
3) LMG Gunner (LMG, pistol)
4) LMG Assistant (rifle, 2x ammo cases)
5-8) Rifleman (rifle, grenades)

British 2nd Squad
1) Corporal ...
...
5-8) Rifleman ...

...and so forth for each squad you want to field. Players can then sign up with their mates to the same squad, and each squad can also have its own uniform requirement: regular infantry, commandos, paratroopers, etc.

Is that what you are aiming for?

It's very modern to be inclusive and try to please all factions all the time.
Historically this has not worked, not just in airsoft. It goes against human nature.
Good luck with this idea.

Heh, but I want to play the front line soldier with low ammo limits, limited regen etc... I certainly don't want to be recce... And as for sneaking around in bushes.... forget it.

can you just come sat make me happy lol

Josh already provides very inclusive games - and I'm not being pejorative in the slightest. I don't mean 'inclusive' in terms of kit standards or open day blatting style but much more impressively he manages to cater for all tastes, across a wide spectrum and within one game. Like to stick with your chums? Like to sneak about with out firing a shot? Like to be the war film super hero.? Like to command? Like to drive vehicles? Aren't super fit? Unlike any 'hobby' WW2 airsoft game organisers he looks to his player base, assesses their needs and puts a package together to cater for them. It's not one game fits all but more like several games within a game. This is very impressive and won't be found with any hobby organising group who luckily provide a different experience, concentrating on a simpler concept and style.

The existing bundle of games works well and I don't really see any need to exaggerate and add complexity to something that works well. Would I like to take part in a big game, with players some of whose ideas of WW2 airsoft were completely 100% alien to mine. No. Would I like to take part in a big game with common aims and similar (but diverse) player ideals, working to a common purpose in different ways? Yes. I thought that's whay Gunman games were already!

What Chommers said, this just sounds like one of Joshs' big games with different player roles.

I would have thought that a more 'inclusive' role for ordinary soldiers would preclude allocating section positions, weapon types etc. AFAIK we've never actually ever done a game like that, although that is what Porta is doing April (brave man!).

People normally just bring what they fell like bringing. I suppose it is possible that one day the the entire German side will turn up armed with MG42s, but it seems a bit unlikely Having said that, the battlefield at Gothic Line seemed to be littered with non-functioning MG42s, so maybe they did all bring them....

Cheers
Martin

hmm, an 'inclusive' front-line soldier or special opps... It is kind of the two things that I look to avoid .

I would have thought that a more 'inclusive' role for ordinary soldiers would preclude allocating section positions, weapon types etc. AFAIK we've never actually ever done a game like that

Yep, that's been done. Can't remember who by though. PBI perhaps?

It has not been fully done, as there were never 'rifles ago-go' everywhere, but it has been moved towards. The PBI structure at St Lo and Freshman, and Monte Cassino all had the building blocks of the squads/sections, with the LMG crewed and in it's role.

It has mainly been a progression of getting enough rifles kicking around - and enough 'battle' rather than 'sniper' rifles in my humbles.

Ah, fair enough. I'll amend my post thusL

I would have thought that a more 'inclusive' role for ordinary soldiers would preclude allocating section positions, weapon types etc. AFAIK we've never actually ever done a game like that

Yep, that's been tried. Can't remember who by though. PBI perhaps?

I 'could' be wrong of course... But I remember we have taken baby steps
Personally I think having a 'section' doesn't work, and it is better to have the building blocks of said section '2 x teams of 4-5 + LMG', (see Barrie&Annes earlier post about tactics + airsoft) but, again, there is a chance I am wrong.

My suggestion was aimed at finding a workable solution to the oft vaunted idea of 'what if we all got together for one big battle'.

The problem is that different player groups and organising bodies want different things.

So my thought was that perhaps you could almost run two game side by side.

Say for example the main battle was like gunmans early d-day game... lots of people running around having a WWII themed battle with loose command structures *but* behind the lines you have a game more like jedburgh being run. But unlike jedburgh where every german is preoccu[ied with finding saboteurs the axis (or whomever) are also worried about their primary goal of taking ground which means the recce groups have a little more opportunity to slip in and out.

Essentially its not a new idea, its the model the very succesful 'town assault' games used for about four years. They had various roles and the more specialised ones you just had to persuade the organisers you were fit enough (mentally, physically, skillset... whatever) to do.

I cant see us ever having a big 'get together' game any other way unless we go for 'lowest common denominator' rules which then puts off a massive element, i just thought that allowing those who want more 'immersion' or whatever to have a very intense game within a broader game might have been fun.

Just an idea

Ah, gotcha. The problem is that the extreme ends of the WW2 airsoft spectrum are rather entrenched (I nearly typed bigoted ) - and the very sight of a restriction turns them apoplectic, even if the reality is rather different from the hurriedly read forum post and restrictions don't necessarily apply! If I put myself at the opposite end of the spectrum, a 'big' game (eeek, Town Assault, you mentioned it ) just fills me with fear of a wasted weekend.

In CiA over the years we have momentarily thought about a 'European' game but soon dissipated when we weighed time and effort against enjoyability.

In modern times Josh's Arnhem game in May last year was very enjoyable - large numbers for sure but was well thought out to cater for different playing styles. Not firing a shot for two or three hours was excellent and immersive (OK, technically we weren't playing in the same site as everyone else but meh, it added to the experience!).

We were lost Chomley! British maps!

On the other hand do remember the two sides of the spectrum are not evenly weighted in their entrenchment. Though, as said, there are many who will not attend games with certain real/perceived restrictions, I am not aware of anyone on the opposing side who doesn't take in the occasional 'inclusive' event.

Totally, for a once a year 'big game' i'd be happy to strip back to basic rules and if it was big enough you could give each faction/nation its own operations area avoiding the 'free for all' look. If you knew (like a real operation) that all the US objectives were west of one point and the Commonwelth ones east of it then you'd see your allies from a distance but not get involved in messing up their squads

It worked for the germans at gothic line where we broke into FJ, and foot infantry platoons.

it worked fine at Anzio and Arnhem.

Yup, for big games it works. For small ones it doesn't really.

Simple.

So unsurprisingly, Josh, with his bigger games, tends to do this more than the rest.

But the point is if we can do a big game between organisers with very 'standard' rules (perhaps the average of the commonly used sets) we can get everyone a change to play within reason (i'd still exclude russians if doing NWE and vice versa) without it looking like a SISK.

And like i say we could have some true recconaisance roles for those that do want sneaky beaky and dont want to chase firefights?

Just throwing ideas out and trying to be positive about what we *can* do rather than hammer into the ground what we already do.