Slashdot Mirror
Military Grade Gaming
Mr. Obvious writes: "A NYTimes reporter has written an interesting, detailed story about the cutting edge in military simulation --- interpersonal interaction! This is not about flight simulation but about fight-or-flight simulation --- see the article to see what I mean. It's short on screen-shots (just one tiny teaser) but long on critical analysis about such things as the fragility of current simulation technology. Should be of interest not only to computer gamers but also to people interested in simulation technology and its (current) limits (particularly in regards to modeling real human behavior)."
There's an analysis of the likely SIOP at the NRDC. You may be interested in the section on how the ran their sim.
Best Slashdot Co
I was there with my battallion from the 10th MTN Division in 1991, and I can tell you that by the time most soldiers actually get into a "shoot/no-shoot" situation, they're already in a state that no video game can replicate.
1) They're tired. Military operations are 'round-the-clock affairs. Nobody ever gets enough sleep (except for pilots) ;-)
2) They're nervous. Even in "routine" situations, the adrenaline can run pretty high. For example, while on patrols in Kismayo, Somalia, we would often encounter young men who would hide in alleyways with sticks or small lengths of pipe held behind their backs. They'd whip these things out as you approached, and each and every time, you'd have to decide in a split-second if the thing was a weapon or just a stick.
3) They're dealing with visual conditions. If it's hot and sticky, and you've been on a patrol for a long period of time, you're going to be even more tired than usual. Your long-range visual acuity can be seriously hampered by glare. Sure, you can wear sunglasses, but then you're at a disadvantage in shadows.
4) They're often overburdened with equipment. Read this: this for a few notes on how the soldier's load can affect combat performance.
5) They're dealing with sound issues. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to pinpoint gunfire's point of origin. Test it yourself: Next time you hear a jet plane overhead, time how long it takes for you to find it, then imagine someone is shooting at you while you're looking. In crowd situations, it's even worse.
6) Terrain can have a tremendous effect. Dense jungle canopy, for example, tends to make you nervous all the time (unless you grew up in in, I suppose). At the Jungle Warfare School at Ft. Sherman, Panama, we'd go on 4-6 hour patrols, and the entire time we'd be constantly on edge because our OPFOR were likely to pop up anywhere.
The problem with any form of simulation is that the further removed you get from real situations, the less likely the training is to provide any real value. In fact, even in the most realistic training environments possible,. like the NTC and JRTC, "perfect" training is impossible.
The MILES laser training system tends to reward use of concealment as cover, for example. While bushes may stop MILES lasers, they don't stop bullets. Even with disadvantages like this, there's no substitute for out in the mud, getting your ass run down and tired, stressed out, is-that-guy-gonna-kill-me-or-not, why-in-the-hell-am-I-here training.
The JRTC is an excellent example of hands-on training that works. There are many situations during a JRTC rotation in which soldiers will have to deal with "civilians" whose motives are unclear. They'll have to try and win over the population by using their brains and communicating with them. The intangibles that computer simulations simply can't replicate are all there at the JRTC.
While I understand the need to save money in training, this is a supreme case of You Get What You Pay For.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I've played the demo of this and it's so realistic that it's creepy. Even the lighting and shadows look real! Of course, in the demo mission, my entire platoon was gunned down and I was left with a leg injury and a rocket launcher to destroy the tank and the remaining enemy force. Needless to say, I lost.
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
What this reminds me of the the no-win simulation from Star Trek where the computer throws everything at you to see how you react, and it can react back at the decisions you make. You're guaranteed to fail (unless, or course, you figure out how to rig the simulation :-) but everyone gets to see how you will react in a panic situation.
Right now, they say that there are only a few possible "paths" that can be taken, but I'm sure that will increase as the technology gets refined.
Similar systems are already in use in the Canadian military - the application that I've heard of is a training system for naval boarding parties that enforce UN embargoes. I've got a buddy who has gone through the system; basically you stand in one spot with an electronic "gun" while various scenarios are displayed on a projection screen in front of you. The scenarios are all live action; like in the article, the scenario anticipates two or three possible outcomes and displays the results based on what you do (hold your fire? shoot at the wrong target? miss? etc.). The intention seems to be to illustrate the consequences of deadly force in a hostile but ambiguous situation, where your life is threatened but it's deliberately misleading which of the characters in the scenario represents the actual danger.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.