The mention of steganography made me think of where I first heard of it: an Alternate Reality Game(ARG). I think the teams of people put together to tackle those puzzles represent some formidable distributed problem-solving capability. Is anyone looking at hiring those guys?
I remember back in "the old days" when I used to run a games design company. Some really bright, out-of-the-box type people were in the industry then. Honestly, I think it has to do with an eclectic mindset more than anything else.Originally Posted by AFlynn
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Games design is an interesting field, but one that isn't valued much outside of its community. Interesting dynamics in this area.
Sorry, been extremely busy for a while.
This ties into sims/gaming
We just deployed 6 DVTE suites (33 Dell XPS 1710 per suite) to II MEF. Additionally 22nd MEU left with a suite.
1 Suite is going to Division Schools to instruct TTPs to Coalition Forces, we had the game company replace all English scripts/voice overs with Arabic.
Tactical Iraqi has been extensively deployed to II MEF
Tactical Pashto is going out the door
Tactical Sahel French will be in the Beta testing stage in another month.
Last September's Gazette has articles covering the DVTE.
Is anyone aware of a computer simulation oriented toward COIN? And what level of sophistication can a "soft" computer game be expected to portray?
My suggestion is do not go down the rabbit hole for the ultimate COIN sim. Instead look for a simulation that allows the end user to modify the game play as needed. If the end user can not change the sim then you have a nasty loop where requirements being feed to the sim company will never catch up with real world scenarios.
The second part is the Artificial Intelligence, JF Com is using AI developed out of the University of Pennsylvania that drives the AI according to the input that the 2 shop should have. There are some that say the best opponant is a human, in some cases I agree with this but for COIN type scenarios and I was your opponant, you would get a "nicholised" view of what COIN is. When the AI is the opponant, you get reactions that are based on outside source input.
Hi Nicols,
Some very good points, here, and they tie into one of the major problems with computer based games; the insbility to shift the programming elements on the fly. Personally, I think one of the best COIN sims is an old science fiction board game by GDW called Bloodtree Rebellion. It's based around classic Maoist insurgency theory, which is a bit of a limitation given current practices, must it's a very nice, parsimonious game.
The flip problem is that the AI is the "nicholized" version filtered through a sim shop. AIs, in and of themselves, are frequently as dumb as the dumbest programmer involved in their creation.
If you are going to use AIs in a COIN sim, then it would be best to "train" them to act as individual leaders in the AO, and update their training based on each subsequent piece oof intel relating to that person. This gets you your "outside source input". Have the AIs as individual "players", but also allow human "players".
Which brings up the question of "rules". All sims are based on rules, but one key advantage that the board games had was their ability to create "simple" rules that would engage with other "simple" rules to produce a highly chaotic game.
For example, let's suppose that we were going to build a COIN sim for Iraq. To my mind, one of the key "rules" would have to be concerned with the availability and cost of cell phones and 'net traffic as well as with their changing capabilities. Ideally, there should also be an LSI component that monitors speaches, graffiti, AIQ posters, etc. All of these are fairly "simple" modules, but they will create a highly complex and chaotic game environment - which is what we have in reality.
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
I would say the best use for computers in this sort of exercise is as book keepers and for determining combat and other interaction resolution. If you're set on using computers, I'd suggest a MUD-type model. You will want live players on the "other side" and not an AI-driven opponent.
Role-playing games would be another good source of rules. Not so much the newer ones (such as d20-based systems), because they have become enamored of many, many tables of questionable utility. But there are a number of older systems out there that could easily be adapted and "computerized" in some aspects.
I'd totally agree with these points. One of the things that led me to get out of game design, and go back to school, was a growing frustration with the use of computers in games. Some of the best games ever designed were produced in the early to mid 1980's and the computer sims still haven't caught up with them.
When you are talking about the "older systems" did you have any particular ones in mind?
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
I wrote an article in last September's Gazette covering the current TDS (Tactical Decision-making Simulations) that the Corps currently uses. Current TDS are used for analytical and recognitional decision making. Our current efforts are to have a Mission Rehearsal TDS.........tough nutt to crack but we are bringing the pieces together.
We have run into problems when doing AT or COIN type missions with live players. I could read all the source material on who or what I', supposed to act like but at the end of the scenario you will be able to trace back certain nicholism that became part of me as I advanced through life.
He's a good article of where we want to go next:
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/%7Ebarryg/CultureGames.pdf
Interesting stuff. Computer sims like that have always interested me, but I do have a bias toward stuff that uses real people on both sides. This is because you can still get free play and those wonderful "out of the blue" things that people (regardless of culture) will do.
Marc, I would say that the old RoleMaster system (not the newer ones..second edition and so on) would be a good starting point simply because it can be "tweeked" into just about anything you need. It also has the advantage of having a stout combat system and a decent percentile-based system that can be used (to a degree) to model more complex actions and skills.
And I agree with you about the mid-1980s being the golden age of game design. I look at the d20 junk now and want to scream. Spycraft alone has more tables than a chemistry lab, and 80% of them seem to have no use at all. I think designers lost sight of the fact that a computer is a TOOL, not a viable opponent in the same sense that the guy sitting across from you is. And don't get me started about computer "RPGs" and like.
What company did you work for/run? I did some design work for ICE and a few articles for TSR back in the 1980s.
Hi Steve and Nicols,
I'm about 1/3 through the paper, and I would like to try out the Athena version. Still and all, I think it is based on a fatal flaw - the players only appear to be "leaders". I would think that, for a complex COIN situation, it would be better to run it as a fully distributed system with components of an RPG in it; basically, something that would allow people to start as a disaffected Iraq, for example, and try to build their own insurgency group.
RoleMaster was a good system. I'll admit hat I had a bit of a tendency to favour the Archon Games system, but it was quite complex. I also used to use a lot of the Paladium Games system.
LOLOL Oh, too true, Steve!
I ran my own company, Valhalla Simulation Games, and did a bit of consulting / freelance work for Palladium and FASA.
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Heard of Valhalla Games.
Palladium was good, but there were certain aspects of their rules that gave me fits.
I used (and continue to use) RoleMaster more as a basic framework and have done tons of customization to it for a variety of game settings.
And I agree with the thought of adding more of a player component to any system that's used to model COIN. One of the more difficult aspects of these situations is the lack of one leader (there are often MANY leaders, springing up and disappearing with great frequency) and the appearance of many new groups. Hard to do in a computer model that focuses on leaders.
VSG was fun while it lasted but, after 5 years, I figured it was beter to go back to school and finish my degree. I do agre on the Palladium rules; some of them gave me fits as well. Still and all, it was an easy system and, IMHO, a system is only a rough guide for a good gamesmaster.
I think the other problem with a sim focusing on leaders is that it also seems to presuppose a state as the operational unit. Given the current situation, this is a mistake. That's one of the reasons I would like to see any sim have more RPG components and be aimed at a model of "bottom-up" conflict, rather than "top down".
Anyway, it's going to be a busy day for me, so I'd better sign off and stat working
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
I find it interesting that the Army has embraced Command Post computer simulations that purportedly exercise CPs as a way to TEWT. I work for such an operation, and I've done a head count and compared it to good old fashioned map and lead miniature simulations, and find that we use up to 3 times as many people as in the old days of pushing lead. Plus, you add in the time and expense of civilian contractors/consultants and the cost of the computers, and it becomes an incredibly wasteful boondoggle, with problems that have remained unresolved for 20 or more years.
So, I fear the Army getting involved in a COIN computer simulation....
We have our MTWS which is contractor intensive also.
In addition we have MAGTF XXI which is a stand alone TDS designed stimulate COC activities. Last year at EWS it was used by the students to drive input into C2PC. This TDS is used by the Marines and does not require contractor support.
Another application for gaming use for teaching coalition forces TTPs.
We are doing a mod to VBS-2, all English scripting/voice ques and so on have been changed over to Arabic. Division Schools has been issued a DVTE Suite that they intend to use for coalition training. This should be interesting.
Well, I knew it had to come...
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Prototype Game
During a recent demonstration at a U.S. Army conference,
the Cubic-NSC team showcased a scenario involving
an insurgent driving a vehicle-borne Improvised Explosive
Device (IED) toward a checkpoint. In this scenario, soldiers
were challenged to counter the insurgent attack while exercising
their unit Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP)
and Rules of Engagement.While simulations alone will never replace live, handson
training with actual equipment, they can provide a
valuable enhancement to the Army’s “crawl-walk-run”
method of training.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks