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.Originally Posted by Redleg7
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
What school are you with?
PM on the way.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
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.
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.
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!!!
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Matrix Games produces alot of "realistic" PC based simulations. Their best deal with naval command, but their infantry ones have been well received.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!!!
I've been a gamer for a long time starting with Avalon Hill's Panzer Blitz.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!!!
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.
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.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
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...
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
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.
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.
Last edited by SethB; 07-21-2010 at 06:39 PM.
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.
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.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
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.
For sure. Some sanction has to exist. When your dead, you're dead.
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.With the UGE now available to anyone, it would be interesting to see how a true FPS simulation would turn out.
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.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.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks