Follow Me Tactical Decision Game

Hey Guys,
Just wanted to post a little blurb about a game we are using at West Point to teach tactical decision making and problem solving. It's called Follow Me and is designed to put our cadets in the role of a platoon leader. At the moment our focus is on light infantry ops but the game is designed to cover mounted ops as well.

Here's a link to the wiki:
Follow Me Wiki

Our main goal was to make earning tactics a lot more interactive. FM gives the cadet's a chance to practice what they've been taught. Keep in mind the game is simply a tool, we do not advocate replacing field training with simulated exercises.

I've run a little over 5000 kids through different types of exercises using FM. I've also visited Fordham and Santa Clara Universities running small exercises for their ROTC programs. Feedback from the cadets is always positive.

We do one here for Air Force ROTC, and the feedback is always very positive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

We do one here for Air Force ROTC, and the feedback is always very positive.

---

Steve,
What program do you guys use?

It's a local product, map-based and not computerized. As you might expect, it deals more with airpower theory at the higher tactical/operational level and puts cadets against each other in four teams (two sets of allies, so they have to practice a sort of coalition warfare).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

It's a local product, map-based and not computerized. As you might expect, it deals more with airpower theory at the higher tactical/operational level and puts cadets against each other in four teams (two sets of allies, so they have to practice a sort of coalition warfare).

---

Is this being done at USAFA or Maxwell AFB?

You should talk to Mo Morgan, I believe he's at Maxwell. They are using a commercial program that's been modified. I believe the focus is on planning an air campaign.

It's ROTC, and it's a local product. I've seen the computerized air campaigning planning stuff, and it doesn't really suit our needs. We have to run it in a fairly limited window (although we're working on a joint possibility that would involve the Army and run most of a semester), and it's geared more toward immediate planning and execution (one turn equals one day) with less of a focus on logistical placement. We've also tailored the air forces so that each team has to work within certain limitations created by both equipment and political considerations.

An earlier version of the exercise was offered up through the AFROTC chain a couple of years back, and no one else seemed to be interested. So we keep plugging away in our little corner of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

It's ROTC, and it's a local product. I've seen the computerized air campaigning planning stuff, and it doesn't really suit our needs. We have to run it in a fairly limited window (although we're working on a joint possibility that would involve the Army and run most of a semester), and it's geared more toward immediate planning and execution (one turn equals one day) with less of a focus on logistical placement. We've also tailored the air forces so that each team has to work within certain limitations created by both equipment and political considerations.

An earlier version of the exercise was offered up through the AFROTC chain a couple of years back, and no one else seemed to be interested. So we keep plugging away in our little corner of the world.

---

Same here in regards to plugging away. The Army opted for a first person shooter, which I was involved with, but to be honest it falls short of our requirements. Now the Army wants to push the FPS into the captain's career course which I cannot reconcile. I've been involved with using games for training for a long while, first at CGSC using Decisive Action and now at West Point. I guess you could say I know a little about using games for training.

It's been something of a struggle here at times to keep cadre interested, but once they see how much the cadets enjoy it (and the handful of non-cadets who've taken it and often 'beat' our folks) they start to come around. It's part of a wider weapons course, so it's not as long as I'd like, but it's a start. We also opted to keep the map-based exercise so that cadets who had completed the course could come back and serve on White Cell. They've also enjoyed that part of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

It's been something of a struggle here at times to keep cadre interested, but once they see how much the cadets enjoy it (and the handful of non-cadets who've taken it and often 'beat' our folks) they start to come around. It's part of a wider weapons course, so it's not as long as I'd like, but it's a start. We also opted to keep the map-based exercise so that cadets who had completed the course could come back and serve on White Cell. They've also enjoyed that part of it.

---

I'm in the same situation, at first the instructors don't see the value until they hear the comments from their cadets that are along the lines of "Why don't we do this more often" or "I've learned more in one hour than I have in the last six".

Our game was designed with both the training audience and the instructors in mind. If the game is to challenging to use the instructors will not want to use it. If the game interface is to hard no one will want to use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg7

I'm in the same situation, at first the instructors don't see the value until they hear the comments from their cadets that are along the lines of "Why don't we do this more often" or "I've learned more in one hour than I have in the last six".

Our game was designed with both the training audience and the instructors in mind. If the game is to challenging to use the instructors will not want to use it. If the game interface is to hard no one will want to use it.

---

Our interface is easy, and the game engine itself is streamlined and easy to use. I've had cadets who went through the class turn around and resolve combats and situations with only an hour of training beforehand. Since it's geared to be freeplay (within the scenario limitations), instructors exist to answer rules questions and that's about it during the exercise itself.

What school are you with?

I've used FPS' as a training aid and I think it works very well for teaching convoy operations. It does not work as well dismounted for a variety of reasons.

But if you want to practice sectors of fire, checkpoints and radio procedures it works well at a fraction of the cost of getting everyone into a vehicle, which is what I'm told they used to do.

Now, if you want to look at JCATs, that system takes it to a whole new level. We could stand to double down and use more of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg7

What school are you with?

---

PM on the way.

I took the "Training with PC Based Simulations" elective at CGSC in APR-MAY. We were introduced to everything from FPSs, through small unit stuff (Follow Me, TACOPS and Steel Beasts) to large unit level sims (DA, etc).

Each sim has its uses and limitations. As long as you understand the sim, and use it to train appropriate training objectives, they are great tools.

The biggest issues I see are:
1- senior leaders that don't accept the validity of training
2- the "learning curve" required for some sims (the more "realistic", the steeper the curve)
3- lack of leaders understanding how to train with sims
4- the possibility that budget cutters will forego live training for sims. Sims can meet some objectives, but the final edge has to be honed with live action training- you can't simulate the sights, sounds, heat, fear and exhaustion of combat, but you can come pretty close (everything except the fear) in an environment like JRTC.

Is it available to people who are not affiliated with the military?

I didn't see info on the site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 82redleg

I took the "Training with PC Based Simulations" elective at CGSC in APR-MAY. We were introduced to everything from FPSs, through small unit stuff (Follow Me, TACOPS and Steel Beasts) to large unit level sims (DA, etc).

Each sim has its uses and limitations. As long as you understand the sim, and use it to train appropriate training objectives, they are great tools.

---

I am a huge fan of PC Based Simulations for training. They are great tools, and need to be far better understood.

I find it very strange that some Officers who have used them for fun have actually said to me, "Oh they're not realistic. What we get trained to do for real, does not work in the game." - no really! I have had that said to me twice!!! :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I am a huge fan of PC Based Simulations for training. They are great tools, and need to be far better understood.

I find it very strange that some Officers who have used them for fun have actually said to me, "Oh they're not realistic. What we get trained to do for real, does not work in the game." - no really! I have had that said to me twice!!! :eek:

---

Matrix Games produces alot of "realistic" PC based simulations. Their best deal with naval command, but their infantry ones have been well received.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by huskerguy7

Is it available to people who are not affiliated with the military?

I didn't see info on the site.

---

Not at the moment. I've talked to Jim about a commercial version but he is tied up with military stuff at the moment. I'd like to package it as a series of scenarios that cover a variety of tactical themes. Platoon ops from WWII to the present. Each vignette would actually be a lesson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I am a huge fan of PC Based Simulations for training. They are great tools, and need to be far better understood.

I find it very strange that some Officers who have used them for fun have actually said to me, "Oh they're not realistic. What we get trained to do for real, does not work in the game." - no really! I have had that said to me twice!!! :eek:

---

I've been a gamer for a long time starting with Avalon Hill's Panzer Blitz.

When I ran Decisive Action exercises at CGSC the students would always complain that one aspect or another wasn't "realistic" and I would tell them "No crap Sherlock it's a freakin game". My COL showed us a slide with the following quote:

All models are wrong; some models are useful.
-- generally attributed to the statistician George Box

We get pushback in regards to realism all the time. For what we are doing close enough is good enough. My question to those officers would be did you learn something useful? It's really up to the instructor to manage those expectations up front. A lot of pushback comes from "professional" modeling and sims types who have a hard time wrapping their minds around abstractions. Anyone who has played a boardgame will understand abstractions. If you look at the big sims I'd say that all of them model at the individual entity level or close to it. JWARS, WARSIM, JCATS, BBS, JANUS, etc are all entity level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg7

We get pushback in regards to realism all the time. For what we are doing close enough is good enough. My question to those officers would be did you learn something useful? It's really up to the instructor to manage those expectations up front.

---

Concur. It is actually better to switch it around and say, "Do tactics that work in the game, work for real - within the limits of the model?" - and then, "do things known to work for real" then work in the game.
What games expose is "faith based tactics," not proven to work on operations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg7

When I ran Decisive Action exercises at CGSC the students would always complain that one aspect or another wasn't "realistic" and I would tell them "No crap Sherlock it's a freakin game". My COL showed us a slide with the following quote:

All models are wrong; some models are useful.
-- generally attributed to the statistician George Box

We get pushback in regards to realism all the time. For what we are doing close enough is good enough. My question to those officers would be did you learn something useful? It's really up to the instructor to manage those expectations up front. A lot of pushback comes from "professional" modeling and sims types who have a hard time wrapping their minds around abstractions. Anyone who has played a boardgame will understand abstractions. If you look at the big sims I'd say that all of them model at the individual entity level or close to it. JWARS, WARSIM, JCATS, BBS, JANUS, etc are all entity level.

---

One of the things I've been wondering about lately is whether advances in computational power, AI, and interface have diminished this made this problem, or made it greater.

On the one hand, we can make both the game interface and the opponent AI much more sophisticated than ever before. Driven by the multi-billion dollar commercial gaming industry, this continues to develop by leaps and bounds.

On the other hand, when simulations look like simulations (as with any board game), users can also more easily recognize--and potentially consider and debate--the assumptions that are built into the game design. That's less likely to occur, I think, as the sophistication of a computer game increases.

Whether this matter depends to some extent on what we're modelling. If it is straight force-on-force, the physics and Pks and so forth have been well understood by the OR folks for years. When we get into social dynamics—so essential to most COIN/stabilization scenarios—its all rather more indeterminate. In those cases, I think there's a real danger of increasingly sophisticated simulations passing off as "fact" what is essentially not very well understood.

This is an argument that one sometimes hears in the physical and design sciences--that for all its remarkable contributions, for example, CAD has also come at a cost in the quality of architectural production. (For those who are interested in the critique, see Sherry Turkle's Simulation and its Discontents). As we develop increasingly sophisticated COIN simulations, and try to capture the complex political behaviour of actors with derived rules or algorithms, there any risk of the same sort of problems?

I don't have a firm position on the issue, but i do think its an interesting set of questions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

One of the things I've been wondering about lately is whether advances in computational power, AI, and interface have diminished this made this problem, or made it greater.

On the one hand, we can make both the game interface and the opponent AI much more sophisticated than ever before. Driven by the multi-billion dollar commercial gaming industry, this continues to develop by leaps and bounds.

On the other hand, when simulations look like simulations (as with any board game), users can also more easily recognize--and potentially consider and debate--the assumptions that are built into the game design. That's less likely to occur, I think, as the sophistication of a computer game increases.

Whether this matter depends to some extent on what we're modelling. If it is straight force-on-force, the physics and Pks and so forth have been well understood by the OR folks for years. When we get into social dynamics—so essential to most COIN/stabilization scenarios—its all rather more indeterminate. In those cases, I think there's a real danger of increasingly sophisticated simulations passing off as "fact" what is essentially not very well understood.


I don't have a firm position on the issue, but i do think its an interesting set of questions...

---

In regards to COIN we have a variety of references, histories, to use as a baseline. The game itself would have to be flexible enough to "tweak" as we apply current lessons learned. And finally it's up to the instructor or proponents of the model to provide any disclaimers in regards to the modeling.

I think a smaller game with narrower learning objectives is very doable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg7

In regards to COIN we have a variety of references, histories, to use as a baseline. The game itself would have to be flexible enough to "tweak" as we apply current lessons learned. And finally it's up to the instructor or proponents of the model to provide any disclaimers in regards to the modeling.

I think a smaller game with narrower learning objectives is very doable.

---

I think what could be interesting would be to randomize some of the baseline social relationships, so that a player/student would be encouraged to ask the right questions, rather than blindly copy historical approaches that were themselves highly contextually dependent.

Take, for example, the relationship between unemployment levels and support for insurgency. In some conflicts the relationship is positive (unemployment creates grievances and makes it easier for insurgents to hire guns), in some cases there is no relationship at all, and in a few cases the relationship is actually negative (employment generates resources which are funnelled to the insurgents). Similarly, tribes and tribal leaders are very important in some places--and not in others.

A truly effective COIN game would encourage the participant to map the human terrain and be wary of cookie-cutter approaches. However, that is a bit of a departure for game designers--who have tended to work with unchanging physics models in the game engine. Still, it could be quite easily done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I think what could be interesting would be to randomize some of the baseline social relationships, so that a player/student would be encouraged to ask the right questions, rather than blindly copy historical approaches that were themselves highly contextually dependent.

Take, for example, the relationship between unemployment levels and support for insurgency. In some conflicts the relationship is positive (unemployment creates grievances and makes it easier for insurgents to hire guns), in some cases there is no relationship at all, and in a few cases the relationship is actually negative (employment generates resources which are funnelled to the insurgents). Similarly, tribes and tribal leaders are very important in some places--and not in others.

A truly effective COIN game would encourage the participant to map the human terrain and be wary of cookie-cutter approaches. However, that is a bit of a departure for game designers--who have tended to work with unchanging physics models in the game engine. Still, it could be quite easily done.

---

Something along the lines of a COIN SimCity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg7

Something along the lines of a COIN SimCity.

---

That's what UrbanSim appears to be. I haven't played around with the software, but I would be worried if it somehow universalized (say) Fallujah as the model for all urban COIN everywhere always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

That's what UrbanSim appears to be. I haven't played around with the software, but I would be worried if it somehow universalized (say) Fallujah as the model for all urban COIN everywhere always.

---

And I'm afraid that's what you might see if you went to an all-computer simulation of COIN...depending of course on how dependent you were on the AI. If you used it like a MUD, for example, I could see the utility. The problems begin as soon as you rely on the simulation to provide the majority of the "actors" and even take on the role of factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

And I'm afraid that's what you might see if you went to an all-computer simulation of COIN...depending of course on how dependent you were on the AI. If you used it like a MUD, for example, I could see the utility. The problems begin as soon as you rely on the simulation to provide the majority of the "actors" and even take on the role of factions.

---

Actually, David Earnest (Old Dominion U) had a really interesting article on MMO- type multiplayer approaches to COIN simulation in the Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulations last year.

My own classroom simulation is designed around this idea of a large number of participant interactions. It works well--especially the sense of intersecting agendas and the imperfect information flows that it generates--but it's human moderated, and pretty much takes up 90% of my week when I run it. USIP is designing software to support that type of simulation (the Open Simulation Platform), into which you would then "slot" your scenario and setting. This is all text and basic chat, though--no WoW style maps and immersive VR environment (or, for that matter, Night Elf Mohawk grenades).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

Actually, David Earnest (Old Dominion U) had a really interesting article on MMO- type multiplayer approaches to COIN simulation in the Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulations last year.

My own classroom simulation is designed around this idea of a large number of participant interactions. It works well--especially the sense of intersecting agendas and the imperfect information flows that it generates--but it's human moderated, and pretty much takes up 90% of my week when I run it. USIP is designing software to support that type of simulation (the Open Simulation Platform), into which you would then "slot" your scenario and setting. This is all text and basic chat, though--no WoW style maps and immersive VR environment (or, for that matter, Night Elf Mohawk grenades).

---

Our local brew is reasonably labor-intensive too, but I consider it worthwhile in that our cadets get experience with something other than automated planning processes (or simulated automated planning processes). I guess I've always viewed the computer sims as tools that can be used toward an end rather than an end in and of themselves.

Does USIP have a downloadable version of this up yet? Last time I looked they were still testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SethB

I've used FPS' as a training aid and I think it works very well for teaching convoy operations. It does not work as well dismounted for a variety of reasons.

But if you want to practice sectors of fire, checkpoints and radio procedures it works well at a fraction of the cost of getting everyone into a vehicle, which is what I'm told they used to do.

---

About a year ago, I volunteered for a FPS simulation group. A team of volunteers with members who had combat experience took modification of "Virtual Battle Space 2" and modded it even more to try to make more parts realistic and allow for 200 people to play at once.

It served as a great tool for practicing strategic and tactical planning, communication, and leadership. Commanders would map out a plan and routes would be drawn up. However, changes would be made, and these would have to be coordinated quickly and efficiently. I think the biggest takeaway were leadership experiences. Whether you were commanding a 90 men or 10, you could always get something out of it.

Of course squads would practice fire sectors and moving in formation (players unfamiliar with these would learn beforehand). With the "arcade" settings exchanged for "simulation" settings, squad movement and communication became imperative to win.

If the right FPS is used, I think that it could provide some rewarding experience.

We did an exercise for our Defense Strategic Studies course we did an exercise that incorporated a lot of roleplaying. We used the event capability in Follow Me to trigger the roleplaying. Prior to the exercise we created the areas and triggers for each event. As the cadets conducted their operations events would "pop" based on a trigger, in most cases the trigger was a blue unit entering a specific area. Follow Me has the capability to show jpg, text, audio, or video events.

For this exercise we opted for simple jpg files. Whenever the event fired a graphic would show describing the event, the cadet would decide whethere or not they needed to take action. If they did then they would move to the designated roleplay area.

On the host machine we are able to monitor the events as they were triggered. Whenever one was triggered we would let the roleplayer know so he/she could get into character. If the cadet moved to the roleplayer area the roleplayer would do their thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by huskerguy7

If the right FPS is used, I think that it could provide some rewarding experience.

---

Strongly concur. The real issue is often that Soldiers loose confidence because the skills and drills used with blank ammunition out on the training area turn out to be garbage, once someone is shooting back.

Even something as simple as the Unreal Game Engine has huge potential, even compared to something like VBS-2 and some of the ArmA-type clones.

The only real problem I am aware of the the "PC-VC" syndrome where folks tend to be vastly more aggressive than they would be if any real sanction for "getting killed" existed. - still, that's down to the trainers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

The only real problem I am aware of the the "PC-VC" syndrome where folks tend to be vastly more aggressive than they would be if any real sanction for "getting killed" existed. - still, that's down to the trainers.

---

While with my group, we encountered this issue and it was hurting the team's performance. What did we do? We modified the respawn time from 3 seconds to 30 minutes. Next thing you know, alot of the "risky" actions begin to disappear.

It would be really interesting to see the Unreal Game Engine used for a training program. VBS-2 is good, but it's not very "fluid". As a result, it can be buggy, difficult to use, and not look very good. With the UGE now available to anyone, it would be interesting to see how a true FPS simulation would turn out.

Lastly, one thing that is essential for almost any simulation is that it must be human versus human. So many simulations have used a human versus AI approach. Simply, the AI isn't realistic on this level. So many simulations have invested substantial resources into their AI development which has defeated their reliability. AI may be a great partner in the future, but right now it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by huskerguy7

We modified the respawn time from 3 seconds to 30 minutes. Next thing you know, alot of the "risky" actions begin to disappear.

---

For sure. Some sanction has to exist. When your dead, you're dead.

Quote:

---

With the UGE now available to anyone, it would be interesting to see how a true FPS simulation would turn out.

---

I was amazed at what could be done using UGE. If you just look what the gamers have done with it has immense possibilities for training and is far less system specific than VBS.

Quote:

---

Simply, the AI isn't realistic on this level. So many simulations have invested substantial resources into their AI development which has defeated their reliability. AI may be a great partner in the future, but right now it isn't.

---

Well warfare is human!!! - AI simply cannot compete with humans in a training environment. The only system I have seen that is anywhere close is the system they use in "Steel Beasts" which is amazing, and explains why it is such a good training tool, as the AI follows an orders based system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I was amazed at what could be done using UGE. If you just look what the gamers have done with it has immense possibilities for training and is far less system specific than VBS.

---

If DoD does decide to pursue a FPS simulation software, two things need to happen.

First off, they need to be willing to invest the money into it. In my opinion, the cost for developing a solid simulation run around $20 million USD-$25 million USD (I'm somewhat familiar with the gaming industry, so that's where I got those numbers from). Sufficient investment will allow for more development time. More development time means a better experience.

Second, contract a gaming studio to develop it. Studios have more experience and have better scriptwriters, programmers, designers, etc. Supplementing them with a couple developers from DoD to ensure that there is a focus on realism wouldn't be a bad decision either.

If these two steps are followed, then a true, solid FPS simulation could be developed. That's just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by huskerguy7

First off, they need to be willing to invest the money into it. In my opinion, the cost for developing a solid simulation run around $20 million USD-$25 million USD (I'm somewhat familiar with the gaming industry, so that's where I got those numbers from). Sufficient investment will allow for more development time. More development time means a better experience.

---

Based on my knowledge of the smaller games houses, those numbers would seem excessive. 90% of the functionality is there. Games like Red Orchestra and Darkest Hour are already De-facto Platoon and Battle Group simulators. OK, things like Night-Vision, and TI overlays would need to be done but that's very low cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Based on my knowledge of the smaller games houses, those numbers would seem excessive. 90% of the functionality is there. Games like Red Orchestra and Darkest Hour are already De-facto Platoon and Battle Group simulators. OK, things like Night-Vision, and TI overlays would need to be done but that's very low cost.

---

I might have been dreaming a little about this...let me explain.

A popular game called "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" was released by a studio called Infinity Ward. Despite being a game with an arcade feel, it still had impressive elements. These include sound, graphics, programming, scripts, and movements.

If a studio with as much talent as IW and was told "you are suppose to make a simulation that is made for members of the military (you will be supplemented by DoD personal to ensure that a simulation is made rather than an arcade game)." These guys would then use their talent and resources to create a beautiful environment (realistic sounds, settings, etc). They also have the resources to bring in military personal to observe movement, communication, marksmanship, and the physics of shooting.

Basically, if you bring in a "big time" studio and give them the direction, I think the benefits would be well worth it. For the first time, you would have a solid simulator.

intuitive leaders and commanders might involve games like Call of Duty that Husker Guy mentioned. Obviously the game can't do it all but it can help accelerate decisions and actions.

Conversely, the strategy games appear to be of little benefit in accelerating decision ability -- that doesn't mean they don't have value. Different strokes and all that...

LINK.

And as stated by others, utility exists in both types and yes it would be beneficial. That question of how beneficial and to whom for what purposes will probably have a lot more to do with which you use then which one looks pertiest.

Then again FORM over FUNCTION and all that jazz so your guesses are as good as mine as to what types becomes predominate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg7

I've been a gamer for a long time starting with Avalon Hill's Panzer Blitz.

When I ran Decisive Action exercises at CGSC the students would always complain that one aspect or another wasn't "realistic" and I would tell them "No crap Sherlock it's a freakin game". My COL showed us a slide with the following quote:

All models are wrong; some models are useful.
-- generally attributed to the statistician George Box

We get pushback in regards to realism all the time. For what we are doing close enough is good enough. My question to those officers would be did you learn something useful? It's really up to the instructor to manage those expectations up front. A lot of pushback comes from "professional" modeling and sims types who have a hard time wrapping their minds around abstractions. Anyone who has played a boardgame will understand abstractions. If you look at the big sims I'd say that all of them model at the individual entity level or close to it. JWARS, WARSIM, JCATS, BBS, JANUS, etc are all entity level.

---

My only iisue/concern with games/sims like DA is the abstraction of realative combat power and the % losses.

Why not factor the % lost into a number of systems/soldiers/vehicles? Its a f'ing computer! Its good at keeping track. Then the Loggies folks could get their heads around the number of "runners" to keep in the fight and the number of ones to repair/replace.

Agree completly with the observation its all about commander/instructor support/buy-in. Without, the game/sim will fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

That's what UrbanSim appears to be. I haven't played around with the software, but I would be worried if it somehow universalized (say) Fallujah as the model for all urban COIN everywhere always.

---

Update: I got to play around with UrbanSim at I/ITSEC this week, and it's actually a pretty impressive piece of software from what I could see, especially if embedded in a course properly.

Hey guys I've created a new Follow Me website. I plan to add a lot more, if anyone is interested in writing an article for the blog portion please let me know.

Here's the link:

Follow Me

I'm still working on the overall look of the site.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

TJ

New article on the Follow Me website.


3 Class Technique

FYI there's a new game called Crucible of Command that was designed for the company level. When played in multiplayer mode you could simulate a BN level operation.