Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose 636
Alien54 writes to tell us that the latest game in the US Army's recruiting toolbox is an impressive game, simulating both weaponry already in use and some still on the drawing board. The game portrays the nation's military in 2015 but, as some critics have said, may lack even the most basic elements of realism. From the article: "For example, there's no consideration that military power or technology could fail or be jammed, she says. And the enemy doesn't learn, in contrast to a certain real-life conflict where the hallmark of insurgents is their ability to rapidly gain knowledge and evolve."
But wait ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! You obviously have a short memory and don't recall the time that Canada invaded (as a response to a US invasion of Canada) and kicked your ass all the way to New Orleans...
Re:But wait ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually that's not quite true either. At the time, the British considered the US citizens members of the British empire so they were recruiting them for the war against France - that explains the taking of citizens off of merchant ships (I dont agree that was right, but the British did not recognize the soverignty of the US at the time). Britain didn't want the US trading with France because of the ongoing war with France and Napoleon - the Hitler of the day.
The US invaded Canada (BNA at the time) becau
Re:But wait ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Verses the combined military might of Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy to name a few. Bring your head out of the clouds! In a conventional military engagement with the rest of the world the US would literally be slaughtered.
The rest of the world have more soldiers, more planes, more ships and more than 10 times the US production capability and land access via the rest of the continent.
If you really believe what you just posted then you are a blind moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Er right.
Verses the combined military might of Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy to name a few. Bring your head out of the clouds! In a conventional military engagement with the rest of the world the US would literally be slaughtered.
The rest of the world have more soldiers, more planes, more ships and more than 10 times the US production capability and land access via the rest of the continent.
If you really believe what you just posted then you are a blind moron.
Three words: Fuel Air Bomb
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But wait ... (Score:4, Funny)
And they aren't particularly good at mine clearing.
Re:But wait ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA spends 466 Billion of the entire world's 900 billion [globalsecurity.org] dollar expenditures on military. China alone has more soldiers than USA has regular people, but that doesn't necessarily count for much in modern warfare.
Simply put in a conventional (modern) military engagement between USA and the rest of the world, there would be no winners. Our entire planet would be totally messed up, billions would be dead.
But even that isn't the likely scenario... some countries would undoubtedly side with the US, and the game of diplomacy would begin (which is what happens in nearly every war). Try to think of the world as a big ol' Risk board game right now. Then put yourself in the shoes of a born again Christian who is driven by faith (and thus has a moral excuse for his actions), and has significantly more little army figurines than most other countries combined.
In such a scenario, there's no clear cut winner -- like I said before, everyone will lose.
If you really believe what you just posted, then you are the one who's blinding yourself.
Re:But wait ... (Score:4, Funny)
All the US has to do is roll a lot of 6's on defense and the rest of the world is toast!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly (Score:3, Funny)
The only militaries that could give us a tussle in an all-out fight are Russia and China, and since we're all trading partners that won't happen. England won't declare war on a U.S. ally. Italy? Please. Spain. HAHAHAHHHAHAHAHA. The rest of Europe would be content
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Declare war on a member state of the EU and the rest of it will come running to their defence. Remember that the EU is a strong bind between the member states, much stronger than the bond between even the UK and the US (people here generally dislike the fact we're so close to the US politically). That's Europe, you know, which has population as large as the US and an awfully more experienced military record (i'm being quite serious). Besides, Italy and Spain's military power aren't to be under
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also worth noting that all the attempts to actually shoot down missiles in flight so far have failed miserably, or succeeded accidentally. Of course, they'd say that even if they were glaring successes, but... If the US actually had a capable Theatre Missile Defense System you'd see all kinds of fallout on the international stage, along with a new arms race. If you remember, this was a very big topic in the news before 9/11 (along with North Korea's nuclear ambitions and rocket tests, and China 'accidentally' downing one of our planes in international waters) that suddenly just disappeared after the planes hit.
While I consider myself a bit of a nationalist, and a definite "military enthusiast," I'm not at all willing to say that we can shoot down a long range missile with anything approaching reliability or regularity, much less a multi-stage ballistic missile with MIRV bomblets. If the nukes ever fly we're just as dead as everyone else who doesn't have a doomsday shelter. If nuclear war ever looks eminent I'll probably be taking a trip to the Greenbrier to "play golf" and "take in the sights."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Forget that. If I find out the nukes are in the air, I'm going after that hot business analyst a couple cubes over. "Hey, baby, it's our last few minutes on earth ... "
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggested this: the Soviets don't NEED to sink a carrier. Just do one or two or both of these:
A. send a low-yield/radiation, high-blast effect nuke or exotic violently explosive bomb over the CVNs. Warp the flight deck and jame the steam catapults. Now, no jet planes (other than Skyhawks, Harriers and smaller training planes) would launch. If you get lucky and j
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet we have the audacity to tell North Korea and Iran they can't have any. What's good for the goose is good for the gander I think.
Re:But wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's assuming no one launches the first batch thinking they are going to get 70 virgins out of the deal, or that Jesus is coming back and all the 'good' folks are going straight to heaven, so it doesn't matter if the rest of us get cooked...
Deluded folks don't fear the same things you and I do.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is not really a good thing, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But wait ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The economic impact from something so simple as changing the default currency for trading commodities is so detrimental to US economics that you can pretty much bet your life that the US government is doing all it can to protect their dollar.
If it were a world vs US war, the world would win by simply cutting off all ties with the US. Simply put, the US's worst enemy is itself.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
but since Yamamoto, the average american has grown somewhat too large to hide behind a blade of grass.
Re:But wait ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, in a head to head fight the nuclear weapons would come out and everyone would lose. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) means just that. Any country with nuclear armed submarines can be farily sure they will wipe out whoever takes a crack at them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Source: CIA Factbook [cia.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
There is far more to an effective military than raw manpower figures.
Re:But wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)
worked for the chinese in the korean war
to quote stalin (maybe)
Quantity has a quality all its own
Corrigendum (Score:2)
Oops, I should have double checked. According to the CIA Factbook the population of China is 1,313,973,713 so that would make China's population about 4.4 times the size of the population of the USA.
What do you suppose would happen if China were to start dumping all those trade deficit US Dollars it's accumulated? China has quite a lot of leverage over the USA because of our fiscal problems.
Re:But wait ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
By releasing the doves at dramatically appropriate moments, they plan to ensure that all goes according to the script, ensuring victory for the good guys.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'd have to rethink that. Europe has enough power and technology to stop you in your tracks.
Re:But wait ... (Score:5, Informative)
Now if you're including Russia in Europe that's a whole different thing. Both Russia and the U.S. have about 8000 warheads apiece considered battle ready. Britain has about 200 and France about 350.
Plus, the U.S. doesn't have the language and governmental coordination problem that Europe has.
Re:But wait ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Last I checked there was about 6000 miles of Ocean between the US and China. And the US has a deep water navy, while China does not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He only became an enemy of the US when he invaded another country with oil to give himself more market share so he could force the price up. If he had stuck with gassing the Kurds the US would have ingored this and carried o
A sim (Score:5, Insightful)
In games, this difference between reality and simulation is often dictated by the fun factor. I mean how fun it will be drving a car simulator and if you crash you will need to repair the car yourself after staying 3 weeks in hospital. Not fun at all, so you simulate a crash and... start again with a new one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A sim (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A sim (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot the part where you do something tedious for hours on end in order to get the money needed to buy what you want.
Oh wait, they have those games already. They are called MMORPGs. *ducks*
im in ur office, collectin ur paycheck (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that sort of simulation would be too realistic for most people to handle.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you could literally simulate your whole life while your real body wastes away and becomes an organic component of the sofa.
Greetings slashdot readers.
Re: (Score:2)
=Smidge=
Re:A sim (Score:4, Interesting)
A game is something you can play it to have some fun.
A simulation is an attempt to simulate the real world by including real physics and real world constraints.
A simulation might be a game if you can play it. But a game isn t always a simulation.
For example Need for Speed is a racing game which isn t a simulation. You can drive at insane speed and even if you crash into a wall your car wont notice it (not real world physics). Moreover even if you re the most dangerous guy on the road, its easy to get rid of the police (not real world constraints).
On the other hand, TOCA Touring car is a racing game which is also a simulation. If you go too fast you go out of the track at the first turn. And if you run into your opponents, you will receive some damages (real world physics), and might get disqualified (real world constraints.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Writing a perfect simulation is like writing a piece of software which can prove any theorem. It's not possible in any practical sense.
The key in the simulation are the assumptions it embodies. We currently spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Presumably this is to cover just about
Why, of course (Score:3, Funny)
It stands to reason that you can't lose if you can type iddqd whenever you get into trouble.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Political FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Political FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about being realistic, this is about convincing people to join. In other words it's advertising aka marketing (aka lying).
It could probably also be used to get more funding from the government too.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...Actually it seems the military did commision (at least some of) those "industry-standard" flaws:
(Citing the article quoting Mark Long, co-CEO of Zombie, where the game was built under contract)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if the AI is poor, don't use AI - let the opposing forces be played by real humans. Imagine a middle east simulator where you could choose to be an insurgent (poorly armed, but can ambush, has local knowledge, can blend in with civilians), or a US soldier (heavily armed, but obvious and vulnerable to ambush). Both sid
Re:Political FUD (Score:5, Informative)
In full scale war games, they actually bolt electronics onto the Serviceman's actual rifle that essentially plays laser-tag with blanks. You have to have a clip to make the gun fire, and the guns do actually Jam, and they have simulated land mines, IED's, morter attacks, air strikes, etc. It's all in a real environtment, so you have heat and cold, dirt, body odor, everything.
Some reserve units are actually pretty experienced and can beat Opfor. They are the minority. Most newer units get schooled, and they have the experience of having died in battle to teach them what not to do.
"You die at Fort Irvin so you survive your real battles."
yes, it is, and it should be (Score:3, Insightful)
America's Army (Score:4, Interesting)
Who wants to join the losing side? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they built the game so that you could lose, that would make the game interesting and eclipse the whole point of the game.
It's like when they have airshows with the Blue Angels or open house day where civilians can stand on the deck of a carrier. It's not meant to give you a realistic idea of what goes on. They aren't going to show you guys swabbing the deck or the guys emptying the latrine. They show you the good stuff and when you're sold, they hit you with reality.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People then wonder why moral is low and troops and their parents are complaining about the support and conditions. If I tried to sell you something by misrepresenting it, I would be liable to prosecution, and you would get you money back.
Abu Ghraib Hidden Level (Score:5, Funny)
- the digital camera;
- the lead-acid car battery;
- crocodile clips;
and, of courseHey, Rummie! (Score:2)
What is failing power? (Score:2)
What kind of graphic card... (Score:2)
I played America's Army for a long time. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, have you ever used an M16, notorious for it's tendency to jam, or an AK-47, famous for it's reliability? While the 5.56mm ammo of the M16 offers several advantages over the 7.62mm ammo of the AK-47, when it comes to reliability, the AK-47 wins hands down.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, because the "low and right" could be compensated with adjustable sights. Good groupings are a much more meaningful indicator of quality. So the Ak-47 seems not to be so bad after all.
According to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47 [wikipedia.org], the chamber and barrel are chromium lined which should
It's true it can't lose (Score:5, Insightful)
As shown by the shock and awe campaign in Iraq, the US armY has a clear advantage in conventional combat. I bet the US can win a war against any naval, air and and armored enemy army. The problem is that the enemy has evolved. Any one with half a brain will not go in a frontal war against the US, but there is an achilles heel, morale
Any nation wishing to carry out a succesful defense against a US invasion has to fight a guerrilla war. Forget about the tanks, forget about the planes, forget about the uniforms. Send your soldiers home with a very lose chain of command and a clear mission. Wage a war of oportunity. Attack only from crowded places, dress as a civilian. Attack the countrymen that colaborate with the US. The goal of your attacks is to make them as shocking and news worthy as possible. The can't do anythinga bout that. They cannot fight against the people without giant political fallout. Wait long enough and you will drive them out.
I think the US Army doctrine is obsolete. These are new times in warfare, where aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines mean nothing.
Re:It's true it can't lose (Score:5, Insightful)
Churchill had already put in place extensive plans to deal with a successful German invasion including chains of command, weapons dumps etc and had people trained specifically to kill Germans whenever the chance was offered and also anyone co-operating with them.
Even longer ago in Afghanistan when the British were there the opposing tribes simply played them along by on the one hand pretending to negotiate with them and getting what they could from them and on the other doing whatever they could to isolate the British forces disrupt their supply lines. They managed to get the British to agree not to fortify their encampments and later once the position was becoming increasingly untenable they offered safe passage back into India at which point they triggered what is, I think, still the worst Military defeat the British Army has ever received. I think there was only one survivor out of a force of 7,000 or so.
So, these tactics have a long pedigree and with a bit of luck often work which makes it all the more surprising when people tell you that the fact its happening now is such a shock and they hadn't expected anything like this to happen.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if you have the most powerf
True, Afghanistan just repeats (Score:2)
So the role call so far i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any army has a clear advantage if the enemy is ill equipped using outdated weaponry and surrenders on sight. When was the last time the US military fought a equivalently modern well equipped army? You're probably gonna have to go back 50 years at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the Titanic couldn't sink.
Sure, going up against a clapped out country like Iraq makes the USA army look good. But what about a mightier foe? Say China?
The USA military relies so heavily on advanced technology these days, that I think it could be disadvantageous in a battle with a foe more of its equal. Imagine a battle situation where the enemy is cunning and understands your technology. You think that, for instance, the Chinese are not capable of disrupting GPS signals on a ba
Three Block War (Score:3, Insightful)
We used to joke about how dumb the Yanks were - nice guys, but dumb as rocks. Things like the Dragon ATGM manual being a comic book didn't help that impression very much. Yank training was very focussed on accomplishing a specific job for a specific soldier, with little to no contingency training. Compare against Canadian doctrine,
Escaping reality? (Score:3, Insightful)
Things are not going well over there at all. I used to hear my Commander In Chief say stuff like..."...stay the course...",..."...bring them on..."..."we'll get him (Bin Laden) dead or alive..."..."We'll prevail..." and the latest was "all major military operations are complete and the US has prevailed." Such rant is now gone.
Let's not forget that it was the same rant/rhetoric 30 years ago and because we could not escape reality, we had to face it and lost the war. Do not get me wrong. I support our troops. What I do not support is the bigotry and the "I know it all attitude" our leaders have.
If we had to fight them over there so that we do not fight them here...then let's put in mind the fact that we've lost close to 3,000 lives in this war. The number is about the same as those lost on 9/11.
Re:Escaping reality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Excellent point. Those lives would not have been lost if the US had not invaded Iraq. And, of course, the invasion did absolutely nothing to deter or prevent terrorists from striking again on US soil. It was painfully obvious from the get-go that Iraq was not harboring members of Al Qaeda. Iraq did not have any WMDs to speak of either. The administration knew this beforehand, but chose to lie about it as they saw it as the best way to get the public behind them. It's fucking shameful that they were able to manipulate the public into supporting this travesty of an invasion. And no, I won't ask you to pardon my French, and yes, I know that this has been said time and again before, but it can't be said too often.
The US administration was able to get its fucking evil way by repeating lies again and again. The victims of this insanity deserve nothing less than to hear the truth, again, again, and again ...
Re:Escaping reality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you're right and it is fighting the Iraq war which is protecting you, or maybe you're spending a lot more money and resources on more conventional anti terrorism measures now, or maybe you've just been lucky so far, or maybe terrorists can't cross water until they reach a suitable power level.
The opinion of most people is that the threat of terrorism is now much greater thanks to activities in Iraq.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The tumor was removed - an unequivical 'good thing'"
"You removed the tumor by shooting him in the head! He was a little unstable before, but now he's in intensive care."
"Well, he was a danger to himself and others. You saw how he was acting. Threats, bluster, arrogance. He could have snapped at any time!"
"Yeah, and you had 'reliable reports' he was stockpiling weapons in his bedroom."
"Damn right I did. Look, ev
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's funny, morons like yourself were constantly telling us about all the evil WMDs Saddam had and how that was all the justification they needed to go to war.
I'd like to know if you have perhaps only recently learned to read ? Maybe you are deaf ? If not you'd have noticed an awful lot of people telling you before the Iraq war that it was very unlikely Saddam had any WMDs at all and even if he did even less likely that he'd ever use them on the US.
The
Re:Escaping reality? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Salesmen's job is to sell the product (i.e. the politician selling the idea of an easily won war)
The Engineer's job is to actually deliver the product (i.e. the army actually winning the said war)
No-one ever seems to listen to the engineers, it's always the salesman who the client communicates with; the half which has absolutely no experience of what is actually required to get the job done (or whether it is even technically possible).
To me, the parallels between the current Iraq war situation and your typical incompetently specified I.T. project are startling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'm utterly aware of the difficulties facing the US military in Iraq (and particularly how mismanaged the post-invasiona deployment has been by the Bush administration) I'm not entirely sure you can say the US is being "whipped" in Iraq.
To conquer a nation of 22 million = 3,000 casualties (the huge majority of which have been caused in occupation operations). Germany's population in WW2 was 55 million. Think about that for a second.
When your opposition has no way to f
the enemy doesn't learn (Score:2)
Basically power corrupts both morality and the ability to learn.
Surely computer sims are about the Basics (Score:2)
So concentrate on getting the basics correct. Some of those basics would be rote learned in idealised computer environment where replaying "Mistakes" is cheaper.
Why should the computer be 100%? If it was held to be the model of perfection, troops would learn to fight the computer and not the enemy.
Using a *Shooting game* to recruit to the army? (Score:4, Funny)
Since when was war supposed to be fun and desirable?
"You see the game? Come to the army! Now you'll have the chance to shoot people, for REAL!" - ugh
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously you haven't played THIS game yet. I tried it yesterday, sounded cool, nice intro and then bam: it's all played on a 2D map with icons. Oh the briefing that lasts 8 minutes and contains 98% hardcore military jargon. Tons of fun.
Well, I guess hardcore war gamers will find it fun. I'd rather go back and play another run of Company of Heroes. But thanks to the American tax payer anyway, this is still tons better then the National Guard's crappy "
Wrong criticism. (Score:4, Insightful)
Winning wars is easy, winning the peace is harder (Score:5, Insightful)
A few more suggestions... (Score:2)
Things like:
-300 points for team-kills, except Europeans.
-100 points for civilian kills, but some mild torture should give at least +10 but with the possibility of some bad press.
+50 points should be given for every gun you manage sell to the insurgents instead of using against them.
I'm sure this list could be extended...
Here's an Iraq's terrorists recruitment video (Score:2)
Personally I find what the US military is trying to do shows of much more taste.
US Military's View of Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging from this game (and the disaster that is Iraq) their view of this hasn't changed, and it's something that they obviously want new recruits to believe as well. The US has the best technology in the world and it never loses!
Oh, and another thing. Does every weapon have to have a bloody acronym? It's not an IED. It's a bomb, or a roadside bomb or a mine (they're nothing new - really). That will do. I don't see any other military in the world that has ever needed to find acronyms for things that they don't like - maybe it seems less real that way
Re:US Military's View of Technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Join the Roman Legions today. We have the best technology in the world, and never lose...
Join the Grande Armee du Nord. We have the best technology in the world, and never lose...
Join the German Wehrmacht today. We have the best technology in the world and never lose...
Technology is not the only deciding factor when it comes to winning a war. History repeating itself yet again...
sounds like a game to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, first it's a recruiting tool. Of course the Americans are going to come out on top. (But, in all honesty, there really isn't a peer military any where in the world.) But more importantly, these criticisms with respect to the Army are ridiculous. There isn't a game made that has meets these criteria. Everyone can pickup as much ammo as they want without ever slowing down. Everyone can carry multiple full sized guns. Guns just miraculously appear whenever you change to them. (Aparently weapons are stored in some sort of pocket dimension like Optimus Prime's trailer.) Wounds don't do anything. You can be miracuously healed in an instance. Guns don't get jammed. People don't get tired. Guns are always accurate. Everyone can drive any vehicle, from snowmobiles to tanks. Oh and the tanks? They take a crew of one, and operate at full effectiveness right up until they explode.
Sure some games have some of these things, but it's rare when they do, and they rarely have them all. Why aren't games realistic? Because they're games. They're meant to be fun, and when compared to fantasy, reality frankly sucks.
battlefront.com (Score:2)
America's Army (Score:2, Interesting)
Now I know the game is propaganda for the US Army and any ideals it holds, but I haven't joined the forces yet, nor do I ever
Real life lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
American army technical superiority is great when they need to go somewhere, do the job and get away quickly or simply sterilize an area from the stratosphere, but when they have to stay somewhere, they suffer from their low headcount.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And also from the low ability of their head to count.
it is just recruitment tool.. nothing else (Score:2, Interesting)
In the end, it is a recuitment tool to lure all those console kids to join, with the promise of "cool weapons".
Its aimed (no pun intended) at the kids.. i hope there is not an adult who would make a career decision based on a game...
Our US Army even cheats in real life war games (Score:4, Informative)
I remember reading about the military's cheating a while back. Here's a little background [smh.com.au] about how the US spent $253 million dollars on Middle East war games in 2002 and fixed it so they would win.
Not only missed the point ... (Score:3, Informative)
... but missed the dartboard altogether.
This game, much like America's Army, is a recruiting tool. It's designed to get teens and twentysomethings interested in signing on the dotted line and raising their right hand. So naturally it's going to be "hard to lose," because actually losing might discourage someone from peeking his head into the Army recruiter's office.
The Romans would have run it on a (Score:4, Funny)