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.
Re:Killem in a better way. yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Still works.
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.
WTF?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What can't they simulate? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, sorry, I forgot. Saddam was a Nice Guy(tm).
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
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Friend or foe (Score:1, Insightful)
What do you think they're gonna do? Make Quake 3, complete with a frag counter?
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:3, Insightful)
Dude, unless you want America to start using all 20000 nuclear bombs, you'd better pray Americans continue to fund their miltary.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
The same with tyrany.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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 need a military anymore is absurd. I think recent world events are proof enough of that.
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 and failed in Iraq eighty years ago -- shoot and bomb Iraqis into accepting the occupation.
From the film, it didn't seem that the US soldiers - skilled as they may be at killing efficiently - had any talent/inclination/direction to try and win over the locals. They have anyone with language skills so the patrols are limited to hand gestures to "talk" to people, and there is no cultural interaction. As a bizarre contrast, down in Basra, a couple of clowns had shipped out to provide entertainment to the local kids. US patrols are all vehicular, whereas UK troops do (at least some of) theirs on foot, paired up with local police.
End result, US troops need training in fostering local goodwill, not how to shoot (although various ironic statements about how not to shoot friendlies spring to mind).
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:A better focus for training... (Score:1, Insightful)
It's their stated policy not to get into situations where they are an occupying force, though...
In general, it seems most of the comments here are not really comments on the story itself. Almost everything I see is negative commments on Iraq and the policies / people that created the current situation. I do mostly agree with them, but I do think anything that makes individual soldiers more skilled and thereby confident in their skills saves lives by making the right decicions easier to reach.
Re:Civilian casualties (Score:2, Insightful)
Knowing the map (Score:4, Insightful)
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:What can't they simulate? (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying that the fact that certain members of the current US administration looked the other way in the past makes Saddam Hussein a good guy? Really, the apparent duplicity of Rumsfeld et al has absolutely no bearing on the argument at hand: was or was not Saddam Hussein a murdering bastard of a dictator who should have been taken out?
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:3, Insightful)
Don't bother trying to talk sense to liberal pinheads, it will just piss you off.
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
Re:Well... (Score:1, Insightful)
Regime changes in Japan and Germany were part of WW2. At least it's obvious that the original poster assumed this. And you certainly weren't directly involved in the Soviet regime change. Don't be ridiculous.
Read a book.
Reading books is no substitute for intelligence or common sense.
Re:No need to panic (Score:2, Insightful)
After WWII the Army switched its small arms qual (SAQ) from bulls-eye targets to pop-up man-shaped targets. This way the Soldier is better trained to kill the enemy. Lying down, or in a foxhole, the Soldier sees enemy popping up, and it looks and feels very similar to training.
It's hard to kill another person. It gets harder the closer (physically or emotionally) you are to the target. Historically one of the biggest factors on whether or not a Soldier would kill someone else is that someone else (in authority) told him to. That is very hard in a MOUT environment. The individual Soldier is on his own, or with a buddy, away from his sergeants or Lieutenant.
This is a glorified shoot-house (police use these). It's a combination of "shoot, don't shoot", plus gives the commander C2 (command and control) practice over the MOUT battlefield. He gets to feel how long clearing an environment like this really takes, and how to better stay in contact with the dispersed elements.
You are right about the nervousness of Soldiers, and the less likelyhood of undeserved massacres. What should happen, though, is the number of enemy casualties will go up even more. We're trained to kill them, but they are still stuck in a "posture" mode.
Re:Killem in a better way. yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Change against to to help and you have a different point of view, eh?
Re:What can't they simulate? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 false pretenses: that Iraq had WMDs and was planning to use them against the U.S. Whether they had WMDs in the months before the invasion started, we don't really know; there are all kinds of arguments like, "Well, we know they HAD WMDs in 1998 or so, and there's no reason to think they would have destroyed them," but so far all the evidence is circumstantial. And as has been revealed in bits and parts over the past year, there was essentially no evidence that -- even if Iraq had WMDs -- they were going to use them against us.
Okay, well what about freeing the Iraqi people? Sure, that's an admirable goal, to bring democracy to what was formerly a cruel dictatorship. Assuming you actually pull it off and don't fuck up the country even more... but that remains to be seen. The problem is, Bush & Co. didn't actually say that this was the reason they were doing it in the first place. Back before the invasion, it was all about the WMDs. WMDs, WMDs, WMDs. Then after months had passed with no WMDs, they started shifting to the liberation argument. Which is a good motive, but just because they did something good doesn't excuse the fact that they lied to us to do it!
Our response ought to be, "Fine, so you freed Iraq from the chains of tyranny. Good job. However you also lied to us about your motives. You're fired." Compare it to a man who instead of turning a child molester into the police, kills the child molester himself (before the child molester's trial). "Great job, ridding the world of that presumably evil bastard. However, you committed a murder, so you're still going to jail."
In addition to the liberation argument being an ad hoc justification, it misses other important facts:
1) There are numerous other tyrannical dictators in the world, e.g. all across Africa, whom we have not made noise one about getting rid of. If liberation and bringing freedom and democracy are so important, why doesn't the administration have plans for all the other dictators?
2) We've established a precedent of toppling evil dictators, so everyone expects us to topple all the other dictators.
3) The U.S. has established a precedent that it can unilaterally decide that a government needs to be toppled. This is just going to make other countries nervous, which is not good for our foreign relations.
The situation is not as simple as "Saddam was evil and needs to die, therefore the invasion was justified."