IMO a MilSim event, (which is in essence what a 24hr event is, you dont run 40 consecutive skirmishes and call it a 24hr game) has two piviotal precepts that have to be adhered to through out the entire game. They are logic and continuity. With out those two factors you have shit hapening that either makes no sense in the overall context of the event, or severely hampers the flow of the game dynamics. What does that mean exactly? That means you dont have a few poorly thought out objectives that are completed within the first few opening hours, and then cramble on the other end to fill in the gaps with mundane tactically pointless Skirmishes that have no signifigance in the big picture.
For event organizers to pull off a succesful event they have to essentially do their utmost in the initial planning phase to ensure the objectives in the game are not one dimensional, for example don't give Blue force one option in terms of tasking, in military excersizes the participants aren't concerend with one single aspect of the situation developing in the field, they are continously looking at the grand scheme in terms of the sucess or failure of one task as it relates to other critical considerations. If the COs decide to re-direct troops from tasking A to assist another element thats under extreme pressure, make sure as game organizors that decision (and every decision made in the TOC) has a direct impact on the game. The diversion of forces from tasking results in Red force missing the window for a resupply, which leads to the game in all sorts of directions, everything from the Carl Gustav M3s that were Air dropped falling into enemey hands which obviously will have repercussions in terms of the security of Red held collateral structures and vehicle assets. There could be ancilary missions springing up from every eventuallity. Running the game like this is actually far less restricting that the conventional way of giving out one mision at a time, some thing that is not only unrealistic but is also limiting for everyone from the COs to the particpants in the foxholes and bunkers. This gives the maximum freedom to operate for the COs and also allows for allmost limitless and exciting evolution of the game.
There is an excess of linear thinking in terms of mission tasking IMO for larger events. Every outcome should be interlinked, success in one confrontation between oponents should have implications that carry through out the campaign. That means if Blue Forces loses it's Air defence network, it loses a portion of the ability to defend against Airstrikes, which in turn gives their opponents the ability to call in Tac Air (and in our case that means actual muntion simulators being detonated in everything from structures, to vehicles, using coded pulses transmitted from AN/PEG LAM packs which trigger blast simulation devices attached to strategiclly important targets). That failure to defend that link in one force's assets has far reaching implications through out the engagement, thats MilSim, not some unrelated string of breif exchanges of AEG fire, spread out throught the 24hr span, with a sprinkling here and there of breaks fllowed by interludes of old tired mission profiles. Using the AD network example a game planner can use that situation to create a series of cause and effect game develpments. again as an example the Blue force now has added pressure on it to find a way to neutralize the Red force's Air superiority, that can be done in a number of ways. when you look at it logically it becomes simple to almost flowchart the entire game this way, as long as you have contigency plans set up for each outcome, again the onus is on the planners and the organizers to facilitate that.
Presently many of the games have COs who command in name only , they are really not challenged to do any more than the kid who is playing his first real game, arguably they are responsible for making judgement calls, but with out continuum parreleling the tasking they are left with little means to actually shape the game using their sense of strategy.
Thats the type of planing and foresight that will cause a quantum leap in the way this game is played, not because some manufacture makes some new model of weapon, or super new digital camo. by now it should becoming clearer what I'm trying to convey here, the game will stay the same and eventually stagnate unless challenging (that means both tactically, and strategicallly), meticulously thought out game planning can be integrated into the larger games, Imagine what would happen to %90 of Olympic sports if there wasn't the Olmpiad games to aspire too, thats maybe a convaluted example but i think it has some crdibility as a annology. There is the posibility that it is more than enough for th majority of players to dress up in their "Army guy" gear and have a adult version of a Scouts campout complete with Automatic BB guns, but there is also the possibility that there are others who are willing to put in the effort and preparation to play their part in creating a more emersive experiance, one that can offer some thing for every level of player, from the Mod 1 Mark ZERO newb to the crusty Ex CF captain. Airsoft is not there yet, at least from my experiance, and to accomplish that (if there is even any desire with in this community for it to grow in that direction) it is going to take massive co-operation between provinces and organizations at a unprecidented level