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.
"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'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".Originally Posted by Steve Blair
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.
"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.
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
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks