Quote Originally Posted by BayonetBrant View Post
Of course, the major challenge with a human arbiter instead of the computer is that the unit who's ass is getting kicked will default to the excuse of "That idiot running the exercise didn't give us credit for the # of (fill in the blank) that we should've had! If we had that this would all be different!"

It's the same reason we don't use false positives in the intel training - it allows the unit to have a built-in excuse to ignore the lessons they should've learned.

If you've got the computer to point to and say "you fired 20 shots and 11 hit" the unit doesn't argue as much as they would if there was a 'DM' saying the same thing.
I would agree IF all that was being modeled were kinetic results (and even then people have been known to accuse the AI of 'cheating' on the results...often with some degree of accuracy depending on the model). But with COIN you have a variety of human factors that I don't think can be accurately modeled using computer systems. As I've said before (and others have echoed) a combined system may be the best way (using the computer for 'combat results'). But at the end of the day I really think you do need a human control element, or at least a majority of humans involved on all teams and minimal AI.