Army Discusses MMO Troop Training Sim 401
An anonymous reader writes "Over at GameSpot, there's an interview with Dr. Michael Macedonia of the U.S. Army about the AWE training sim, a 'massively multiplayer simulation [based on the There 'virtual world' game engine] that will be used by military personnel to train troops in urban situations before they are airlifted to a battle zone.' Macedonia says 'We built downtown Baghdad in this environment', and also says 'we call our games tactical decision aids. Our thing is not making people shoot better; it's making people think better.'" We previously featured an initial announcement of this project in January.
What can't they simulate? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What can't they simulate? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, sorry, I forgot. Saddam was a Nice Guy(tm).
Re:What can't they simulate? (Score:2, Interesting)
Once upon a time, he was. Whose foreign policy was it to deliberately ignore his gassing and torture of Iraqis in the 80s? Whose bright idea was it to support him militarily then?
Here's a clue, pal. US foreign policy objectives have NOTHING to do with human rights or democracy, except as a matter of piety.
Re:What can't they simulate? (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying that the fact that certain members of the current US administra
Re:What can't they simulate? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, asking the question this way is misleading. Almost everyone agrees that Saddam was an evil, murderous, tyrannical bastard of a dictator. Almost no one will cry when Saddam dies.
But just because someone (or everyone) believes that Saddam deserves to die, does not mean they believe that the U.S. should have invaded Iraq in March 2003. The Bush administration justified invading Iraq under fal
Not saying it is (yet) (Score:3, Interesting)
2 (the main point). Kill ratios don't mean shit. It is all about who can suffer the kills most effectivly. We had a kill ratio well over 10 to 1 in Vietnam, but the enemy did not mind losing half a million nearly as much as we minded losing 50,000, that is why we lost. They simply wanted victory more than we did. I think the same thing will happen in Iraq (I hope I am wrong). Also, we have already lost more troops in
Re:Not saying it is (yet) (Score:2)
Over 800 coalition troops, actually. 705 U.S. deaths alone.
Re:What can't they simulate? (Score:5, Informative)
Really!?!?! [fas.org]
Umm, don't let Sean Penn fool you, life under Saddam wasn't too swell.
Re:What can't they simulate? (Score:2)
Or will they remove [villagevoice.com] that component so they don't have to simulate it.
Re:What can't they simulate? (Score:2)
Re:What can't they simulate? (Score:2)
Re:What can't they simulate? (Score:2)
From what I've seen, this isn't very realistic... (Score:5, Funny)
There are no rocket jumps, no teleporters, no rail guns, no quad damage...you can't even capture the enemy flag for god's sake!
Doesn't sound very real to me...
Get rich quick... (Score:5, Funny)
Any takers, they are rarer than the admins would lead you to believe!
Ender's Game, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's probably already technically possible, and just requires a generational change for the generals to accept it.
Re:Ender's Game, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead the complex information systems seem to be more geared up to provide line officers with the same information the generals see so that they can consider more factors (without undue performance penalty) in making their own decisions. For example if they can see a tank brigade over the hill in their link from Dark Star/Division Intelligence, they sure as hell will chose to sit on the ridge with anti tank rockets rather than saunter over holding machine guns and not expecting any trouble.
Re:Ender's Game, anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
How long until someone is unwittingly invading their own country?
Re:Ender's Game, anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this mean that (Score:5, Funny)
No need to panic (Score:5, Insightful)
Humanity has been using war games to train soldiers since the time of sparta. Then, as now, the aim was not to sharpen the fighting skills, but the thinking skills.
My feelings on the war in Baghdad aside, I feel happier that the soldiers being sent into the streets of baghdad will feel less nervous, and therefore less trigger happy
A well trained Army is not a more blood-thirsty army, as a matter of fact, the opposite is porbably true.
But is more technology the real solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Humanity has been using war games to train soldiers since the time of sparta. Then, as now, the aim was not to sharpen the fighting skills, but the thinking skills.
My feelings on the war in Baghdad aside, I feel happier that the soldiers being sent into the streets of baghdad will feel less nervous, and therefore less trigger happy
A well trained Army is not a more blood-thirsty army, as a matter of fact, the opposite is porbably true.
Well... I strongly agree on the need for soldiers better trained to handle conflicts like the one in Iraq, but I wonder if the very American approach of using new technology for that is the best. While there is no doubt that for the war itself the US army's hi-tech approach has worked extremely well as the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns have clearly shown, when it comes to maintaining order on the ground and fighting militias it has its limits. British troops in Iraq have globally been better able to pacify the cities they are in charge of than US soldiers, and the reason behind their relative success is not more high tech, geeky new technology but on-the-ground experience in similar missions acquired in Northern Ireland and Bosnia. I can't see a simulator replacing real experience in dealing with the population; it's not something you can simulate like an air battle.
Re:But is more technology the real solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're right, but the only answer to this is gain 'better' education by committing our troops MORE widely into the innumerable 'peacekeeping' engagements around the world?
I guess if the choices are
a) no experience
b) experience with the dynamics of the situations, albeit in an imperfect and incomplete way
c) on-the-job experience
b is better than c, insofar as one could guarantee at least the b) is not teaching the WRONG dynamics because of the medium.
Personally, I think it's more important that the actors/instructors in the MMO be actual individuals from those cultures (and not just American instructors playing the roles). Their perspective may be ENTIRELY alien to PFC Smith from Brooklyn. To me, the value of being exposed to that dynamic is much more important to being able to cope with such situations, especially under stress.
Re:But is more technology the real solution? (Score:2)
Think about how much practice our military would be getting if the Waco thing was still going on. Or if it spread alittle and we had a few random bombs in every large city for the past decade. We may freak about Ashcroft because he seems that type but in government. But that's really what he is trying to preven
Re:But is more technology the real solution? (Score:2)
But unless you allow Texas their independence, and then invade them - you won't have a similar situation. which leads us back to training. Train the living bejaysus out of them, because if they don't have experience, it's the only advantage they can gain.
Mainly my point was that people are going to start worrying about the use of technology in warfare - if that's the case, then worry about uranium depleted shells and self-healing landmines (I won't ev
WTF?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF?? (Score:2)
why can't the US Army put up a mock up of Babhdad and let the grunts try it out for REAL.
Wasn't there a report of US military gathering volunteer Iraqi-Americans to act as civilians for reserve training of soldiers in crowd-control and civilian interaction situations? Maybe they even created a mock Iraqi suburb, who knows.
Re:WTF?? (Score:2)
if I take my team and clear a building, top to bottom, I'm going to need about 20 closed circuit cameras and an A/V van recording all of it, so that when it comes time for the after-action review, we can see each and everything we did right and everything we did wrong.
if we do it in a video game, I can custo
You're thinking skills training... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New MMO? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:New MMO? (Score:5, Funny)
Inquiring minds want to know? (Score:4, Interesting)
If so, will "terrorists" be able to learn from this as well, to see how the US soldier gets trained?
Personally, I'm interested, could be a fun game, IMHO there's nothing wrong with virtual killing (in RL I'm kind of a pacifist)
Re:Inquiring minds want to know? (Score:2)
Just curious--how is it "kind of"
Re:Inquiring minds want to know? (Score:2)
You paint smiley faces and flowers on your smart bombs ("just saying hi!")
You shoot for the knees rather than the head (hey, extra challenge)
You send nice flower bouquets and balloons to people you just fragged
You run your tanks on "green" diesel
You think about it for a really really really long time before krushing someone
You train your special forces to creep up behind people and say "BOO!" really loud to try and scare 'em off.
Whenever you wipe out a third
Re:Inquiring minds want to know? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Inquiring minds want to know? (Score:2)
Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh oh (Score:3, Funny)
Boy was he astounded when all the rocket-jump training didn't work as planned.
Re:Uh oh (Score:2)
This is all well and good ... (Score:3, Interesting)
hmmm
In any case, these games will only take the soldiers upto one point. After that, comes the most important aspect of urban warfare... the mind of the enemy. That is where the battles are won or lost. And every adversary is prone to thinking differently in a given situation!
Re:This is all well and good ... (Score:2)
Re:This is all well and good ... (Score:2)
cheaters (Score:5, Funny)
Not funny- it's happened (Score:5, Interesting)
We were explicitly told not to ever drive off the map. Doing so reset your height variable to 0. Driving back onto the map didn't change this, so you became a "submarine tank", able to see (and kill) everyone but nobody else could see you. They'd had several simulations ruined by people doing this, and SIMNET was very, very expensive to run in terms of time, money and personnel. It was cause for serious disciplinary action.
Thinking soldiers (Score:2, Insightful)
Reminds me of the strange artifacts reported when using Massive IA system in rendering battles scenes for LOTR
The soldiers ran for the hills. That's what's happening when you think
This is not a rant against the military, but again orwelian newspeak. they dont want soldiers who think better, they want soldier with better reflexes (as opposed to consciousness) and who think they are in a videogame.
Definitively NOT thinking better
Re:Thinking soldiers (Score:2)
Friend or foe (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Friend or foe (Score:2)
Take a conflict between Pakistan and India. Let's hypothesize that Pak is the agressor, and we side with India.
Pakistan has US F-16's, India has Russian MiG-29's. Both sides have French Mirages.
All sides would have to be very, very careful with target identification.
Nothing New (Score:3, Insightful)
It scares me somewhat the the U.S. Army is spending $$$ to train 12 yr old kids how to navigate battlefields.
If you really wanted a good sim, why not just use Paintball? It's probually as close as you can get without killing each other.
Re:Nothing New (Score:2, Interesting)
For close quarters fighting, i suppose it could be useful, but then doesn't the US use something called "Miles" for training (laser based targets?)
Using a weapon other than your standard issue for training is a bad idea IMO.. How do you simulate reloads / missfeeds / stoppages with a paintball gun?
Re:Nothing New (Score:2)
The Army is for grunts anyway... (Score:2, Funny)
A better focus for training... (Score:2, Insightful)
America's response? Barring some miracle in the Fallujah talks, it is to do precisely what the British attempted
Re:A better focus for training... (Score:2, Interesting)
Their policy is to not do what they do? IANAL, but I thought that under the Geneva convention if you invade somewhere (and win!) you have an obligation to occupy until you can install a new regime.
Back on topic, I'm sure the sim they're developing would be a great game to play - particularly if you could play on your own local map. Wandering round your local town centre shooting people would be fun.
I wonder if they'd se
There engine (Score:2, Funny)
Cool.
Knowing the map (Score:4, Insightful)
Flight sims too (Score:5, Interesting)
Peace simulations? (Score:4, Insightful)
Peace protesters have long used role-playing to practice strategy, from hassle-lines to multi-actor games. In fact, one author has cataloged 198 forms of non-violent action. [peacemagazine.org] The oldest one on record is known as Lysistratic nonaction, where the women refused to sleep with their husbands until they agreed to stop fighting. The play Lysistrata depicts men with huge erections desperate to sign a deal
Some of the strategies that have been used historically include:
-fraternization with the soldiers (including outright seduction, playing sports together, etc...)
-non-cooperation (refusal to hand over information, "losing" municipal records for jews during WW2)
-demonstrations from standing in front of tanks to vigils
-strikes
-sabotage
It would be quite interesting to use these same tools to figure out which methods are most effective and result in the fewest deaths for all parties, and MMORPG would be a very good tool.
If we can't get non-violent means to work better, I'll stop protesting paying for war preparations and our militaries. If they work better however, I ask you to consider what you can do to stop this
AWESOM-O 4000. (Score:3, Funny)
woohoo! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Killem in a better way. yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Still works.
Re:Killem in a better way. yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New Game? New Engine? (Score:3, Informative)
But I wouldn't be suprised if they used the existin
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Big picture... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not entirely sure why you think the only reason the U.S. army might fight in urban areas is "for strategic control over the resources of the country involved". Also, I'm not sure I know what you mean by that anyway??? Strategic control? Surely an element of that is minimising damage to infrastructure and essential services. Which is what they should be trying to do anyway...I believe this is in the Rules of Engagement and possibly the geneva convention as well. How is it a bad thing for them to try to do this better??
The reason this war has been so protracted is that the army is obviously not all that well equipped to fight in these situations, against a guerilla army, on their home-turf, in an urban environment. Training soldiers to "think better" is the best thing for all concerned.
A well trained army is not a problem, but it may look like a problem if your elected representatives are perceived as using them as a tool of oppression I guess.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
As for popular support, it's a bit silly mentioning it, as the world population as a whole was pretty much against it. At one anti-war march in my country, 10% of the entire adult population showed up.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
The same with tyrany.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Heck, even Iraq is now well on the way to become a fundamentalist islamist state. It was a secular state which was _no_ friend of Osama, nor of Osama's fundamentalist vision.
Here's another idea: how about you mind your own
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Japan? Germany? The entire Soviet bloc?
Read a book.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't bother trying to talk sense to liberal pinheads, it will just piss you off.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you, but 20,000 nukes is not a deterent to some. Al-Qaida in particular comes to mind. With no real intrests to bomb, nukes have no deterent effect against them. Bombing their supporters would do some good, however dragging others into a conflict that is really a low key war is bad policy. Also, while we have theose nukes, that does not mean that we would use them. There is no need in most cases to turn an enemy into a smoking hole in the ground. Take Iraq as an example -- while the US had a great problem with Saddam, that hostility did not go to the point that we wished to kill all Iraqis. Far from it.
A tactical force will always be needed, regardless of the strategic deterrent. Even after one does nuke an area, you still need ground forces to capture the ground. Many situations such as urban fighting, airports, oil rigs, banks, and other high value targets can not be nuked. To nuke the target does much more harm than good. That perspective also does not take into account the negative PR that comes from using nukes. One nuke each on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed about 250,000 in the short term. Thats a large loss of life for a small tactical gain. Strategicly is was a great gain as the invasion of Japan was no longer needed, but relying on nukes alone would be a disaster.
There is some twisted little defect in the American culture that makes their young people actually want to go into dangerous combat situations on the other side of the world and expose themselves to discomfort, death, and dismemberment against people that they have never even heard of. No one else seriously wants to do this.
Dont be so sure about that. Al-Qaida, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades, Islamic Jihad, and others would strike at the US were it not for our tactical force. They know that any attack on United States soil would motivate the US to destroy them. Nuking these small places in Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt all have bad effects for Israel, not to mention those near ground zero. A tactical approach would be much better for all involved.
Even better than that of course is a political solution. Not everyone wants that.With no military, we have no backup. And we all know where no backups leave us.
Spc Gruhn, US Army
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Moreover I'm not sure expeditions like those in Iraq help in that regard. I would be of the opinion that the current Iraq situation is a breeding ground for terrorism, more so than when SH was still in power, althought that is debatable.
There are those in the US who think that the US army should be used to defend the US
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Organizations like Al-Qaida know this, so it lessens the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrant.
If you look at India or Pakistan, though, I don't think you'll find as much local potential political fallout. However, there would be sanctions by western countries.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Interesting)
Spc Gruhn
Keyboard Infantry since 2002
Tactical Force (Score:2, Interesting)
Totally agree with this point. Read Starship troopers (not the movie) to get a better grip on this.
The point about training your tactical force is to teach them to apply the amount of force needed the situation.
Ongoing training of this nature is what the armed forces doing when they are not on Operations. They are called Exercises.
Now for operational purposes the preparation phase becomes even more important. The more important the objective, the better the model. I know when the SAS were training to pul
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, unless you want America to start using all 20000 nuclear bombs, you'd better pray Americans continue to fund their miltary.
Urges.. (Score:2)
it gives realistic death results. as in, when you get 'shot' you have to lie down, stop playing, and watch footage of funerals until the entire simulation run is over...
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't need a military any more!!
Uh, think about this a minute. The reason no one is going to invade or occupy the USA is BECAUSE of our military, and the fact that so many of our youth voluntarily join the armed forces, for whatever reason. I agree that the purpose of the military is to protect US soil and citizen, and not to meddle in affairs of other countries, but to say that the US doesn't n
Re:Well... (Score:2)
No, the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. Why they do it is for the civillian authority to decide.
If anything, what you just described is a local millitia.
"The Americans have 20000 nuclear bombs, no one is going to invade them, no one is even going to get close to invading and occupying them."
Cut-and-past time!
Re:Well... (Score:2)
> If al Qaeda doesn't fit that description, who does?
Where does the Al Qaeda thing fit with the Iraq war? Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no. At the moment the US Army is busy bringing up the next generation of terrorist who will not remember the US fondly.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Flamebait)
When America holds the world hostage with 20,000 nuclear warheads, that's "protecting freedom".
When some guy straps explosives to himself, and does the same thing on a smaller scale, that's "terrorism".
So legitimacy is all about how big and powerful you are? Nice...
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Change against to to help and you have a different point of view, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sim for better thinking (Score:2)
Sims work! With the amount of hour spend playing Medal of Honor and Call of Duty, I can say for certain that I'm tatically ready for battle in the real world.
I suppose this is a joke.
1. Never..EVER stand in the middle of an open field without cover. You will get your sniped.
Yeah, sure. Just make sure you have cover, not "cover". Assault rifle/machine gun rounds travel through thick trees, concrete walls and two feet of ground. Suddenly you don't have all that cover that games make you think you have
Re:Sim for better thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this insightful?
A lot of other countries also think about what they are doing AND THEN kill MILLIONS of civilians: Soviet Russia, 1930s, Germany 1940s, China 1950s, Cambodia 1970s, Rwanda 1990s, North Korea 1990s....
It is in the face of this kind of world that America develops its military. And, it should be said, Europe has had pretty much of a free ride since at least the 60s by only spending 1-2% of GDP on THEIR OWN defence, while living "safe" in the knowledge that America spends 4-5% and was willing to use its own people's lives to defend europe during the cold war (I am a european).
And don't even think of suggesting that the UN is a better current substitute for the military: it did nothing in Rwanda in the early nineties in spite of warnings and months of notice; and it would have done nothing in Kosova if America had not stepped in.
Simulating tactical thinking in urban warfare could save civilian lives by preparing soldiers for the instant decisions and people skills necessary in moving amongst non-combatants while knowing there may be a few combatants lurking.
Re:Sim for better thinking (Score:2)
As a kid growing in Europe at that time I felt extremely disinfranchised from both sides. It was pretty clear the US was not going to help Europe in any way should the shit hit the fan.
I don't think th
Re:Sim for better thinking (Score:2)
my name is a killing word! (Score:2)
Yeah, just like in that book, where the DESERT POWER nomads were willing to sacrifice themselves against the evil Sardaukar terror troops!
Except that the lines in this situation are a little less black-and-white than your oversimplified spin of things would imply. Get a grip.
Re:Sim for better thinking (Score:2)
100% incorrect. The US experienced the greatest loss of life in any military conflict during the Civil War, which was fought on US soil. 620,000 deaths is a generally accepted number, including the destruction of a number of cities, including Atlanta. That's almost 1 in 10 white males between 15 and 59.
T
Re:Sim for better thinking (Score:2)
The point really is, a suicide bombing in Iraq, it's acceptible nowadays. The world views it as, "oh, the US deserves it". Sure, our involvement in the middle east is making the arab world hate us more. Suicide bombings every day, isn't making us go, "oh yeah, we'll just go home, everythign will be fine and dandy".
If we left now, what would happen? You'd have absolute chaos. The country would go to hell. Sure, you can bitch all you want about wet
Re:Civilian casualties (Score:2)
Here, start with this one (Score:2)
Re:Civilian casualties (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Dr. Michael Macedonia"? (Score:2)
e.g. Lois Lane, Lex Luthor, Reed Richards, Bruce Banner, Dr. Steven Strange,Peter Parker, Dr. Otto Octavius, Scott Summers, Warren Worthington,Matt Murdock etc. ad infitum...
But what of his super-hero genitals [imdb.com]?