Follow Me Tactical Decision Game

[huskerguy7]

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.

[William F. Owen]

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.

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.

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.

[huskerguy7]

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.

[William F. Owen]

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.

[huskerguy7]

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.

[Ken White]

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.

[Ron Humphrey]

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.