Slashdot Mirror


Army to use MMOG for Simulation Training

Anonymous Coward writes "Military Training Technology (online edition) has an interesting article, 'The End Game', containing revelations about a Research, Development and Engineering Command project 'that is as timely as the nightly news' - a Massively Multiplayer Simulation for Asymmetric Warfare, or simply MMP: 'essentially a virtual world [developed by There Inc.] intended to train soldiers well beyond the goals of war gaming'."

318 comments

  1. Ymra Eht Nioj by SugoiMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny
    You have died. Click fire to respawn.

    "Man, this army thing is fun!"

    1. Re:Ymra Eht Nioj by RoadkillBunny · · Score: 0

      Well, they need some way to get more soldiers to Iraq...

      --
      Cheers,
      RoadkillBunny
    2. Re:Ymra Eht Nioj by Mod+Me+God · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe, or will this create an army of crack GIs that enter a war zone and start running about killing rats and frogs to gain experience, only to spend days/weeks/months in the Bard/Ironsmith Guild perfecting their song/hammering in a treehouse/cave?

      --
      --

      FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
    3. Re:Ymra Eht Nioj by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You have died. Click fire to respawn.

      There's a fire in the game? Maybe they could use the fire extinguisher from the "First Person Shooter" slashdot icon. At least, it looks like a fire extinguisher to me.

    4. Re:Ymra Eht Nioj by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought this army thing might be fun, so I downloaded America's Army and fired it up.

      Those guys may know how to break people down and build them back up, but their games are about as fun as an impacted colon or a first date with a Mormon chick. Thank god I could uninstall the stupid thing and not have to endure it for six weeks. The only way I'll be joining the army is if I get drafted, and even then I'm not so sure.

    5. Re:Ymra Eht Nioj by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just FYI that is the Rocket Launcher from Quake III. And yeah, it looks a little like a fire-extinguisher. You hold the top right red part, and fire out of the lower left gray barrel.

    6. Re:Ymra Eht Nioj by dwillden · · Score: 2, Funny
      Maybe, or will this create an army of crack GIs that enter a war zone and start running about killing rats and frogs to gain experience, only to spend days/weeks/months in the Bard/Ironsmith Guild perfecting their song/hammering in a treehouse/cave?
      That, and when a really important real world raid comes up they'll decide not to go because the Bin Laden MOB is Always camped.
      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    7. Re:Ymra Eht Nioj by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Level 1: How to make cool looking WMD Evidence for CNN out of 3 fruit roll ups and a empty tissue box.

    8. Re:Ymra Eht Nioj by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "You have died. Click fire to respawn."

      Do you actually know that you won't respawn when you die? Reincarnation is one of those things which is damned difficult to disprove...

    9. Re:Ymra Eht Nioj by bluetrident · · Score: 1

      ha. Great simpsons reference as the subject.

  2. The End[er] Game by GNUman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is that a reference to Ender's Game?

    1. Re:The End[er] Game by levihall420 · · Score: 0

      yes, not a coincidence, they know what the outcome will be!

    2. Re:The End[er] Game by thelexx · · Score: 1

      Vastly more likely related to the strategic concept.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    3. Re:The End[er] Game by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      "Lientenant Hobbes, welcome to Harsh Realm.

  3. SimWar. by vkg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, on one hand, this might be a really good idea: train people to think in new ways, provoke discussion and innovation, and generally have a place for people to make their dumb mistakes before they go out into the field.

    On the other hand, let's not forget one of the big dangers of simulator training is that people often get very attuned to artefacts in the simulator, and then in the real world get their ass handed to them.

    Great if it works. But if it turns out more over-enthusiastic rookies with unrealistic simulator expectations, people are going to get killed.

    1. Re:SimWar. by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      but, we are talking about the US DOD....they will no doubt have huge VR based systems running on Super computer rendered enguagment locations.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:SimWar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But if it turns out more over-enthusiastic rookies with unrealistic simulator expectations, people are going to get killed
      Umm maybe you aren't too clear on the job of a soldier?? If it works, a lot more people are going to get killed than from it not working. They will be "enemies" though, so you probably don't care about them dying. Just remember how quickly a friend can become your enemy.

    3. Re:SimWar. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that training involves more than just simulator practice, right?

    4. Re:SimWar. by BoldAC · · Score: 1

      "These are real people--retired military, paramilitary or paid contractors. When necessary, the exercises will be password protected," Grosse continued, indicating its seriousness.

      I know where we can find the real trouble makers... here. You know that a bunch of the slashdot trolls would play excellent suicide bombers! They (errr....we?) destroy personal slashdpt accounts all the time to stir up fun and mayham.

      Honestly, the internet is a great place to find interesting and creative people to challenge our military.

    5. Re:SimWar. by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 2, Funny

      provoke discussion and innovation

      They could even release on a GPL and then no state would have any advantage in waging war and world would live in peace. Hoorah for open source, saviour of mankind.

    6. Re:SimWar. by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And what happens if the soldiers turn out to be too good? I don't like the war in iraq, and the only good reason we haven't seen more protests (as if there weren't enough already) is because of the relativally low casualty rate. Look at the casualty rate on the iraqi side, tens of thousands of people have been killed, for our 500 losses so far. Even though most of the iraqi army never mobilized and was ordered to surrender or run in circles without cover, you've still got to wonder at what point does a soldier get too good.

      Or what happens if it desensitizes soldiers to the point that their slight paranoia turns to burning down whole villages? The life of a person shouldn't be equated to action/reaction and logic entirely. These are people, and if our soldiers loose their humanity so will the people they are protecting.

    7. Re:SimWar. by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
      Or what happens if it desensitizes soldiers to the point that their slight paranoia turns to burning down whole villages?

      Wouldn't "desensitizing" cause the opposite of paranoia? A unit of soldiers is more likely to shell a village into matchsticks because they're actually afraid of the enemy who might be lurking there.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    8. Re:SimWar. by Catharz · · Score: 1

      Great if it works. But if it turns out more over-enthusiastic rookies with unrealistic simulator expectations, people are going to get killed.

      Umm, how would that be different to any other war?

      The US troops have had unrealistic expectations of what sort of war they are fighting for decades. They all thought they were going off into some glorious John Wayne movie where they'd all be heroes. At least with a simulator they can adjust it to what the on-the-ground fight is like and give the next batch of cannon fodder a little more realistic training before they get their asses handed to them. A good simulator can and will hand their asses to them on every mistake they make. Then they'll learn not to make mistakes.

      --
      To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know, that is true wisdom. --Scooby Doo
  4. Budget cuts by PatrickThomson · · Score: 0

    With America's Army, and now this, it seems the US millitary are tying to save money by having people train themselves.

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
  5. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HEY sarge! NO camping you cheap bastard!

  6. So all my FPS playing make me military material? by killthiskid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article:

    It is generally accepted that immersive simulations form the gateway to training the armies of the future. The MMP is a bold new thrust in that direction, and it's very similar to the massively multiplayer role-playing game concept common in the commercial world.

    So those many, many hours I've spent on Doom, Quake, Quake2, Quake3, etc... can help make me a worthwhile soldier?

    Hmm... having served in the military, I suppose it may be true.

    The concepts of good cover, working as a team, knowing what your weapon can/can't do...

    It makes sense. Aircraft pilots learn in a simulator, why not soldiers?

    Maybe this is why my friends and I are good at paintball... cover me... go, go, go!

  7. We already knew by Ponderoid · · Score: 3, Informative

    There addicts have known about this for months.

    1. Re:We already knew by caferace · · Score: 1
      Makes you wonder why There just laid off 40% of their (there?) staff, doesn't it?

      Maybe USD $3.5M doesn't go as far as it used to...

    2. Re:We already knew by broller · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder why There just laid off 40% of their (there?) staff, doesn't it?
      Maybe USD $3.5M doesn't go as far as it used to...


      Actually, we know why. There came out and told their customers (the community of There) why they were doing what they were doing, within 3 days of when the employees were laid off. They said, basically, "when we started the company, we hired a lot of people to do things that we've come to find that the community is doing for free. We're restructuring ourselves to bring our finances in line with what we think our customers need." In fact, a lot of the employees that were laid off are now volunteering to do the same jobs as before.

      In other words, it would be like if Slashdot had hired a bunch of moderators and coders when the site started. Then, along the way they realized that the users themselves could do the moderating, and slashcode could be developed by volunteers. Then would it seem such a big deal if /. laid off all of the coders and moderators so that they could afford to hire more, say.. fact checkers and editors? ;)

      One of the main hurdles for There is that a large part of their target market can't meet the hardware requirements. One of the top new priorities is overcoming that hurdle. FPS gamers aren't the target market, so their customers don't all have the latest graphics card for example. Many of the employees laid off were in customer service.

      I hope you don't often use FuckedCompany as your final source of information.

    3. Re:We already knew by caferace · · Score: 1
      I hope you don't often use FuckedCompany as your final source of information.

      Much as I'd hope you:

      a) don't use /. as a pulpit.
      b) don't believe everything a company tells you, post-layoffs.

      :)

  8. The problem with this is... by spudthepotatofreak · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's no quad-damage in the real world... bummer.

    1. Re:The problem with this is... by AntonyBartlett · · Score: 1
      There's no quad-damage in the real world... bummer.

      No, there isn't, is there. On a whim I've just looked up some densities, and come to the (probably totally suprious) conclusion that you only get an extra two-thirds damage for using depleted uranium instead of lead. Yeah, bummer.

    2. Re:The problem with this is... by ameoba · · Score: 1

      tac-nukes.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    3. Re:The problem with this is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's no quad-damage in the real world..

      Sure there is, it's called depleted uranium. Only problem is, you die too.

    4. Re:The problem with this is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      conclusion that you only get an extra two-thirds damage for using depleted uranium

      You're only considering the initial impact, which accounts for the minority of U238's damage. Most of its damage is in the long term effects. The half-life of all that U238 coating the dust particles is about 4 billion years, and areas shelled out with DU become uninhabitable. So long Badgag, it was nice knowin' ya.

      Don't believe it? Just watch for "gulf war syndrome 2" playing in a town near you in about 48 more months. It's actually a lot more than quad damage.

    5. Re:The problem with this is... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Game:
      Toss a grenade at the enemy: urhh!
      The enemy sees you and charges!
      Chain gun[Ratt-tatt-tatt-tatt] urhh!
      Chain gun[Ratt-tatt-tatt-tatt] urhh!
      Out of chain gun ammo!
      Shotgun blast[
      BLAM] urhh!
      Shotgun blast[
      BLAM] urhh!
      Shotgun blast[
      BLAM] urhh!
      There enemy is on you!
      Knife! Knife! Knife! Knife! URRAGHHH! (dies)
      YEAH! Got him!
      Whew! Good thing
      I already had quad damage!


      Real world:
      Pistol[pop] thud (dies)
      Whew! I wish I could find a quad damage powerup!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  9. Brainwashing by levihall420 · · Score: 0

    USArmy is brainwashing youth to become a soldier. Same thing with America's Army the game, but this will be on a much more massive level if they let civilians use this. There 0wns!

    1. Re:Brainwashing by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      So, you'd enjoy occupation duty, convoy escort, standing guard, or any of the other "boring" parts of being in the army? This simulator isn't about standard combat situations. A typical scenario in this simulator would be occupation troops in Bagdad responding to a suicide bombing of a police station.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  10. The state of the US military by g4sy · · Score: 5, Funny

    great, now we're gonna have every geek/nerd/whatever (i forgot the difference) signing up for the us military. the gamers corps

    --
    somewhere, on a Big Red Sign:
    if(color==blue){speed--;}
    1. Re:The state of the US military by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      " great, now we're gonna have every geek/nerd/whatever (i forgot the difference) signing up for the us military. the gamers corps"

      If You've ever seen the movie Toys....this might not be such a bad thing. In the movie, gamers are tricked into thinking a remote control vehicle simulation they are playing is an arcade game, when in fact it controls vehicles in a 3rd world country fighting a real war. Personally....while they would need special training....I'd put the twitch reflexes of any decent CS player against those of your average soldier any day.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  11. Asymmetric Warfare? by ShockerFan · · Score: 0

    Asymmetric Warfare? Is that what you call it when America attacks another country? It's not like anybody can hang with our military. Not that I'm proud of that fact (in fact, I'm not proud of it at all). In the long run it's not a very nice way to treat your neighbors ;0

    But at least they're using simulation rather than killing real foreigners!

    --

    Ask me about The Shocker!

    1. Re:Asymmetric Warfare? by Carnildo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Asymmetric Warfare? Is that what you call it when America attacks another country?

      More or less, yes. Asymmetric warfare is when one side has a tank, and the other has a machine gun in the back of a pickup truck.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:Asymmetric Warfare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a simulation is to improve the rate of killing the enemy, rather than substiture the need for war... I can imagine Bush saying "the evil empire posessing Zone-6 of Doom3 have been eliminated, we are moving into Zone-7, I am proud of our boys and girls, some have come back from the front line with poor vision, others have RSI... but I am sure this action will make America a safer place".

    3. Re:Asymmetric Warfare? by dj961 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure if you know this but not getting killed is sort of a priority for soldiers. Training and equipment tend to help them with that. Oh, and if you dislike the current path America is taking in respect to attacking other countries, perhaps next election vote for the democrats? Remember if you don't vote, your "opinion" doesn't matter.

    4. Re:Asymmetric Warfare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have voted for the dem candidate in every election since I turned 18 (last 4 elections), but it doesn't seem to have worked. I'm thinking about voting for a mullah this time. Know any good ones?

    5. Re:Asymmetric Warfare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You pretty much hit it right on the head, but I really wonder how you can simulate extended asymmetric warfare, considering that it has some interesting features.

      A short-term asymmetric war (say, the 1939 invasion of Poland) is relatively easy to simulate. Give one side Panzers, give the other side horses, and start calculating the variety of ways that the horses can lose.

      Long-term asymmetric wars are trickier. Once the weak side knows where NOT to engage the enemy, assuming enough of them survive, they stop doing that. And they get creative. As time goes on, they get very creative. And they actually start doing some damage, while not taking so much damage themselves.

      I really doubt a simulator like this can accomodate this "creativity" factor. Yes, we now know that someone in the IRA figured out how to hook cell phones to mortars for remote-control launching, and yes, we now know that someone in Palestine figured out how to retool land mines to take out tanks, but what we can't know is what will be done in the FUTURE. The simulation would have to know about the possibility of the "creative" attack before it's done--and that's why it won't be a good simulation.

      The most important thing to learn about asymmetric warfare is: Win fast while you have the advantage, because your advantage will diminish faster than you think.

    6. Re:Asymmetric Warfare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooooo...like C&C: Generals! When will we get the ion cannon?!??

    7. Re:Asymmetric Warfare? by Whyte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BTW, when you are in another country killing people, they are called natives.... not foreigners.

      --
      -- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
    8. Re:Asymmetric Warfare? by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
      Oh, and if you dislike the current path America is taking in respect to attacking other countries, perhaps next election vote for the democrats?

      Were you asleep during the Kosovo War?

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    9. Re:Asymmetric Warfare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember if you don't vote, your "opinion" doesn't matter.

      So that's why the US shits on the rest of the world! We don't vote in your elections so we don't matter. Thanks for clearing that up.

    10. Re:Asymmetric Warfare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote? No. Revolt!

      On second thought, don't... I'm sick of hearing about "terrorists" on the news.

  12. what about RTS games? by 7-Vodka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've always wondered why the army didnt use RTS-like interfaces to control their troops in things like the iraq war. Select the units, choose the formation, right click on the target whatever.

    --

    Liberty.

    1. Re:what about RTS games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because no computer interface in the world has yet to surpass voice commands?

    2. Re:what about RTS games? by gruhnj · · Score: 1

      Apparently you have not heard about the 4th Infantry Division. Thye have just this type of system -- its called Force XXI.

      A part of this system called Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2) does work just like a standard top down view on the battlefield. With your UAV's looking down at the battlefield, you can see the enemy position on the map in real time, direct units to engage the target, and destroy the enemy. A Command and Conquer style RTS does exist. Its a great thing. There are computers everywhere all the way down to the vehicle. This links them together woth full ability to Im back to their leaders what they see, what they do, etc.

      Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2) and Gps together are the RTS portion of the new digital Army. For more information see Global Security

      SPC Gruhn
      United States Army

  13. Ob Everquest Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /petition Your platoon KS'd my Saddam!

  14. Games... are well... games by OriginalSpaceMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I play Couter-Strike, or BattleField, I don't care if I die. I just spawn back in next round. I may try to take the game "seriously" for about 5 minutes, but then I just go komikaze into the field running and spraying. What happens when soilders don't take their lives seriously after battle "simulation" for 6 weeks straight? It goes the same for me when I play paintball... it's all serious, until I try and rambo it up a notch and end up with a new multi-colored ass. It's something for phsyciatric stundy, imho.

    --

    You talk better than you fool!
    1. Re:Games... are well... games by realdpk · · Score: 1

      Heh, well, if they do that after 6 weeks of training, then they probably aren't the type of person the military needs as a soldier. I'd doubt they'd go straight from the Desert Combat BF1942 mod to desert combat. :)

    2. Re:Games... are well... games by MatthewB79 · · Score: 1

      Even in games such as America's Army a player might be tempted to go rambo. And some players do. But the ratio of time spent dead waiting for the next round (no respawn) evenually makes players think about better ways to spend thier life (in the game) next round.

      Or they go play something else..

    3. Re:Games... are well... games by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "When I play Couter-Strike, or BattleField, I don't care if I die."

      You don't have to deal with an irate drill seargent.

      Also, you're just doing it for entertainment. They are doing what they want to do with their lives. Different motivations.

    4. Re:Games... are well... games by dourk · · Score: 1

      But I would imagine that respawning isn't yet an option for these soldiers.

      Hopefully, they realize that too.

      --
      Wake up.
    5. Re:Games... are well... games by Whyte · · Score: 1

      In a military setting, I would imagine that individual and team performance would be monitored heavily. At the end of a scenerio, they will likely be criticed by their instructors and superiors. In other words, this would be taken seriously, at least on some level.

      This would allow them alot more 'field' type experience than is currently available. The typical field exercises using real world assets costs alot of money and takes alot more time and manpower. This would essensually allow them to compress a field training exercise into hours with almost no specific planning. Not to mention much improved evaluation tools would be available in a simulated environment.

      --
      -- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
    6. Re:Games... are well... games by James+Lewis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree. I played in a few paintball tournaments, and what it really cofirmed in my mind is that any situation where people are spraying projectiles at each other involves a lot of luck. It doesn't matter how good you are, everyone gets hit eventually. In the games I played, you rarely were reacting to someone, you were just spraying whatever they were hiding behind hoping to nail them when they peaked out. Hollywood movies are way off. If you play a paintball game and really think about it as every hit as you dieing, it quickly reshapes your perception of war. The people who manage to get hit only rarely are the people way in the back with as little as possible of themselves showing, laying down a few cases of paint every game. The people who run to the front, who in the real world would be "heroes", are the ones who get hit the most. Skill certianly plays a factor in survival, but the main deciding factor is who exposes themselves to fire the most. I think in real world the majority of the heroes die, and only the very lucky ones survive. If I were to get drafted into a war, I would be very greatful for my paintball experience because it has taught me just how easy it is to get hit.

    7. Re:Games... are well... games by Simonetta · · Score: 1

      If I were to get drafted into a war, I would be very greatful for my paintball experience because it has taught me just how easy it is to get hit.

      The whole idea of paintball is convey the notion that if you get drafted for a war, then the only intelligent thing to do is get yourself to another country or place quickly where they aren't having a war. In the modern world the people who win wars are the people who don't fight them.

    8. Re:Games... are well... games by James+Lewis · · Score: 1

      I think it's a diservice to those in the military to make a blanket statement such as this. I am sure there are people who join the army who know exactly what they are risking. They do it anyway, because they believe it is for a noble cause, and I think that deserves respect, not to be dismissed as "stupid".

    9. Re:Games... are well... games by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "I played in a few paintball tournaments, and what it really cofirmed in my mind is that any situation where people are spraying projectiles at each other involves a lot of luck. It doesn't matter how good you are, everyone gets hit eventually."

      Paintballs are typically spheroids fired from a smooth barrel, so you won't be getting much better accuracy than your typical handgun. Smoothbore fell out of style in modern armies by the early Nineteenth Century, with ball ammunition not far behind. "Spray and pray" becomes less effective proportionally to the square of the distance to your target, especially if your target knows how to use his/her accurate weapon with precision.

      "The people who manage to get hit only rarely are the people way in the back with as little as possible of themselves showing,"

      "If I were to get drafted into a war, I would be very greatful for my paintball experience because it has taught me just how easy it is to get hit."

      No it hasn't. Paintballs are stopped by silly things like shrubbery, trees, cars, cinder block walls, etc. Rounds from a modern assult rifle aren't. Concealment != cover. In fact I've heard anecdotes about real soldiers doing poorly in paintball matches simply because they're used to the Real Thing.

    10. Re:Games... are well... games by dwillden · · Score: 1
      No it hasn't. Paintballs are stopped by silly things like shrubbery, trees, cars, cinder block walls, etc. Rounds from a modern assult rifle aren't. Concealment != cover. In fact I've heard anecdotes about real soldiers doing poorly in paintball matches simply because they're used to the Real Thing.
      That's interesting because the first time I ever went paintballing was when I was on active duty. My Plt SGT and a couple others were semi-active paintballers, but the rest of us that decided to try it out were not. I don't know how good the other guys supposedly were, but they were all equipped quite well while all any of us had were the rental pump action markers.

      Anyway we applied military ground combats strategies, including setting up lanes of fire for the guys on defense, and we cleaned house on the other team.

      Again, as I noted, I recognise that I don't really know how good the other team was but they obviously played frequently enough to invest in nice equipment.

      If anything our training had us often seeking cover when just plain concealment would have done just as well and still allowed us a lane of fire. Oh, and I learned to fire a pump action marker fast enough to impress a referee at another game location a couple years ago.


      Just my $0.02

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    11. Re:Games... are well... games by paiute · · Score: 1

      I was just watching a "Tales of the Gun" episode that said this very thing. In WWII, troops were being instructed in the "don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes, make every round count" school. Once they got to the ETO, veterans told them to fire early, often, and at everything so as to keep the enemy's head down and prevent them from firing at you.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    12. Re:Games... are well... games by Captain+McCrank · · Score: 1

      You need to play on a OLTL (One Life To Live) server. A box filled with 64 players in OLTL will totally change your style of play. A round is last man standing or till objective is completed. If you're down, you go into spectator mode. First off, it's more social, but secondly, it's more about team work. This is the best way to play, w/o a doubt!

    13. Re:Games... are well... games by CrankyFool · · Score: 1

      My #1 favorite all-time FPS was Rainbow Six. When I played it, I was at the edge of my seat, crawling around corners, slicing the pie and making sure I was doing a full vertical scan of each slice to make sure I didn't miss a tango. When that shot came from nowhere that took me down and got me watching the ceiling as the world turned red, then black, it was emotionally devastating. Knowing it could come at any moment made me careful, deliberate, and aware of how exposed I was at any given point.

      And then I went and actually started training with firearms and entering tactical simulators with live weapons and you know what?

      I rocked. Seriously -- in my first multi-day training session, I was #2. Which, given that I was a civilian and the #1 guy was an experienced SWAT officer, was just fine with me. I believe Rainbow Six engrained habits into me that were invaluable in my actual, very expensive, "people can really die if I screw up" training.

      But again, that's only because I took deaths in Rainbow Six very seriously -- not because I was trying to see it as a sim, but because it hooked me so hard.

      I don't have the same experience today with Halo (pretty much the only FPS I've played extensively since R6), probably because of the ability to sustain multiple shots and the completely unrealistic gameplay ('unrealistic' isn't bad in this case -- Halo's not supposed to be realistic).

      But I will say this about Halo -- The reason it's hooking me so bad is because of the ability to do dual-player cooperative in the same room. There's nothing like the joy of playing with one of my friends because he and I (perhaps because we've had some of the same real-life training) are so tuned to each other's movements and approach to clearing areas. That meshing of styles is rare (it hasn't happened with my other friend who plays Halo a lot), and it's glorious to see -- advancing/retreating while not covering (but covering for) each other, calling out when reloading so the other guy can stand watch, calling out grenades ... It's a sort of intimacy, to be honest, and it's the reason why in a real gun fight, I'd want him at my back. So while R6 may have honed my tactical movement, I think Halo's honing my tactical coordination and cooperation.

      I've done the paintball thing, but usually, because there've been various people in the game that we didn't know, it was difficult to coordinate any actual real group of people. It felt like a spray-and-pray which is still fun, but doesn't feel all that educational.

    14. Re:Games... are well... games by James+Lewis · · Score: 1

      ""Spray and pray" becomes less effective proportionally to the square of the distance to your target, especially if your target knows how to use his/her accurate weapon with precision." I don't think there's a mathmatical formula to it, but only firing when you see someone is a bad idea according to all war accounts I've read and the combat footage I've seen. "Cover fire" is just that. It isn't sniper shots, it's as much volume as you can muster directed at the enemy's positions to keep them down while your people move. At other times, you fire at them just to keep them from firing at you. Maybe you'll get some lucky hits. Maybe your bullets will go through their cover. Maybe you'll get a lucky ricochet. No it hasn't. And how would you know? Have you been in a firefight? I never said my paintball experience taught me how to be a soldier, only that it taught me that no one can be a rambo for long and survive. So your other points are somewhat... pointless.

    15. Re:Games... are well... games by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1
      In fact I've heard anecdotes about real soldiers doing poorly in paintball matches simply because they're used to the Real Thing.
      Soldiers generally do well in paintball matches, especially against non-soldiers (though maybe not agaist paintball pros). Not because they are better in hiding or shooting, but because they are much better at working as a team, moving in squads, listening to the leader, etc. etc. Pit soldiers against civvies, and the soldiers will usually win convincingly.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    16. Re:Games... are well... games by Alsee · · Score: 1

      >proportionally to the square of the distance to your target
      I don't think there's a mathmatical formula to it


      Inverse square, exactly like gravity. Exactly like light intensity. Exactly like magnetic feilds. Exactly like electric feild. The apparent size of a target shrinks by the square of the distance.

      You can avoid that effect out to the range where the random error in your targeting equals the size of the target, giving a 100% hit rate. If your enemy has a smoothbore barrel with 10 times the error of your riffled barrel, then at the proper range you can fire once and always hit, while he can fire 100 rounds and hope to hit once.

      Not to say cover fire isn't useful, but one precision shot easily beats a few pounds of random ammo spray at range.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    17. Re:Games... are well... games by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      Plus paint ball has another dimension - ammo. With the hoppers of ammo that most paintball guns carry, and the only limitation is your wallet as far as reloads go, spray and pray takes on a new dimension. Pick up a real gun and try to hump around several hundred rounds of ammo for it - and then spray a target till you make a hit, and see what the sarge has to say about your "tactics". Paintball is to combat as SCA is to swordfighting.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    18. Re:Games... are well... games by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can know what you are risking without having done 'it' before.
      Nearly every soldier I know who has been in combat either doesn't want to talk about it or tells me they rwally, really don't want to do it again.
      I think you should read and respect the memories and read the diaries of soldiers who know what they're talking about: the people who fought in Vietnam, WWII, WWI and most any modern war a) didn't know what they where getting into and b)never want to do it again. Unless they're diehards who wouldn't know what else to do/are officers/collect ears.
      It's only very rarely that you come across someone who knows the horrors of war and still thinks it is his duty to go and fight.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    19. Re:Games... are well... games by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Magnetism is inverse cubed proportional, not squareed.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    20. Re:Games... are well... games by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Good catch, we are each half right.

      A magnetic pole is inverse square, and short range measurements will show inverse square. However magnets are always dipole and at long range the North/South pair cancel each other out and measurements will show inverse cube for the pair.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    21. Re:Games... are well... games by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I played in a few paintball tournaments, and what it really cofirmed in my mind is that any situation where people are spraying projectiles at each other involves a lot of luck. It doesn't matter how good you are, everyone gets hit eventually. In the games I played, you rarely were reacting to someone, you were just spraying whatever they were hiding behind hoping to nail them when they peaked out.

      At least with paintball you learn that it hurts when you get hit (the one time I played, assholes from the other team shot me in the back as I surrendered after I got painted - I was walking off, arms up).

      Then again, the people who were on my team weren't trained in tactics (me neither) and the playing field was an indoor one where the regulars that all had semi-autos (I was the only member of my team to also have a semi-auto and pissed them off) would have the advantage.

      FPS videogaming and paintball experience is useful, but going into battle without a plan is, umm, probably not so useful.

  15. Shucks by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Funny

    It takes all the fun out of a friendly-fire incident if your sergeant can just respawn.

    1. Re:Shucks by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "It takes all the fun out of a friendly-fire incident if your sergeant can just respawn."

      Let me guess, the British don't want to connect their simulators to this system?

  16. Bad news: We lose. by BitwizeGHC · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm to understand that in the initial simulations, the North Koreans totally overran the United States and emerged victorious -- not through the use of nukes but through millions of zerglings. The Prime Minister of North Korea had this to say:
    "ZERG RUSH kekekekeke ^______^"

    --
    N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
    1. Re:Bad news: We lose. by placeclicker · · Score: 1

      Seems more like something China would do.

      --

      Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of /.
    2. Re:Bad news: We lose. by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Yes, who would win in an MMORPG war....the American Everquest fanatics, or the Korean Lineage fanatics. Scary indeed.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  17. High Tech in the right place? by bigman2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was in the Army, and I don't know if this type of simulation is being targeted at the right place.

    From the story, it seemed like this was going to be a vertical solution- from the top, all the way down to the individual soldier.

    I don't think that anyone below an E-7 (Platoon Sgt) would benefit from this type of training. Below that level, and you are really dealing with more of a human aspect, not tactical. The typical private is going to have more personal issues confronting a hostile crowd, than tactical. Someone else will be there to tell his dumb ass what to do- the question is, can he actual do it- and are his balls big enough.

    Contrary to all the dick swinging here on Slashdot- your balls don't get bigger while sitting in front of a computer- they get bigger by experiencing real-world confrontation.

    Later on- this might be of use- but one thing a typical soldier has a lot of, is time. Train them like crazy, to prepare for the real world.

    --
    No reason to lie.
    1. Re:High Tech in the right place? by cliveholloway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Contrary to all the dick swinging here on Slashdot- your balls don't get bigger while sitting in front of a computer- they get bigger by experiencing real-world confrontation.

      Perhaps working towards avoiding real-world confrontation would be a more admirable goal? You know, compromise, diplomacy, accepting that others may see the world differently to you?

      Now that could be good training. Deal with the conflict before getting your dicks (sorry, guns) out, hmmm?

      .02

      cLive ;-)

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    2. Re:High Tech in the right place? by Run4yourlives · · Score: 1

      You know, compromise, diplomacy, accepting that others may see the world differently to you Those are noble sentiments, but not exactly ones you should be employing an *ARMY* to work out for you...

    3. Re:High Tech in the right place? by Catskul · · Score: 1

      Im not concerned with growing my testicles. They are big enough thanks.

      --

      Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
    4. Re:High Tech in the right place? by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      "Contrary to all the dick swinging here on Slashdot- your balls don't get bigger while sitting in front of a computer- they get bigger by experiencing real-world confrontation."

      my balls get bigger from having sex with women, but hey i guess if you get off on killing thats your bag. your not a psychopath at all.

      also your handle "bigman2003" complements your feelings of inadequacy and overcompensation nicely!

      make love not war f00

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    5. Re:High Tech in the right place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps working towards avoiding real-world confrontation would be a more admirable goal? You know, compromise, diplomacy, accepting that others may see the world differently to you?

      Let's see...they want to kill all of us, but we don't want them to kill any of us. We will accept your equally justifiable values and will compromise: you may kill half of us.

    6. Re:High Tech in the right place? by yummy1991 · · Score: 0

      Its to be ready for a war situation with the goals of winning that avoid real-world confrontation.

      "For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security." - Thomas Jefferson: message to Congress, Nov. 1808

    7. Re:High Tech in the right place? by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who didn't enter with much upstairs. When you were a private, were you such a "dumb ass" with "personal issues?"

      I've known too many dumb-ass E-9's (Sergeant Major/Master Chief) and above to accept that the grade comes with any claim to superior intelligence and intelligence is far more important than the size of your balls as any idiot with an IQ of 65 can yell and fire a gun.

      Oooh-friggen-rah.

    8. Re:High Tech in the right place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In about twenty lines of bigman2003's text you've judged him as a psychopath who's feelings of inadequacy drive him to overcompensate for it by killing in the army.

      Which is more evil, the weapon or the shoot-first-ask-questions-later politician holding it?

    9. Re:High Tech in the right place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah im good at spot judging people. actually i just thought it was funny when i saw his username and i dont like all the testerone americans throw around meaninglessly.

      but yeah politicians will always be the worst.
      i dont even object to the use of weapons or force - but saying that your a better person having killed people is a completely different statement then occasionally we need to use force to do things.

      and also i object to the idea that the only kind of man is a warrior because to me those are the worst kind of men.

    10. Re:High Tech in the right place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like all the estrogen the pussy europeans wallow in. American testostarone was responsible for making or keeping France, Germany, Britain, Iraq and countless other countries free. Not to mention, it's the reason we're able to be the world's greatest single giver of money to other nations and the largest donor to causes of peace and helping starving people the world around.

      Face it, without testosterone pumping americans, 90% of the world would be speaking german, the jews would be pot-ash for dur furhurs gardens and you'd all still be riding horses, washing your clothes in a muddy river and trying to maintain a lifespan of greater than 35 years.

      Don't be pissed at us just because we don't roll over at every intimidation like the whole of europe does.

    11. Re:High Tech in the right place? by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      First- every private is a 'dumbass'- that is just the way the Army works. Second, by 'personal issues' I was referring to the personal emotions that would take over when your mind is thinking about self-preservation, not thinking about the greater good. Self versus mission. Personal vs. global. The change in thinking comes with experience and maturity- not intelligence.

      The point I was trying to make was not based on the soldiers intelligence- but their position on the 'battlefield'.

      It is not the position of a private, no matter what their intelligence, to make a tactical decision- especially where civilians are involved, as the scenarios the article was describing.

      It is the position of the leaders to make tactical decisions, and it is the position of the lower ranking soldiers to carry out those decisions. The Army really does NOT want a private to determine if/when to use force- that decision is for someone with much more EXPERIENCE. Intelligence is not part of the system at that level.

      Every swingin' dick who enters the Army thinks that they are a genius, just like here on Slashdot- it is the OTHER guys who are stupid. (really- show of hands- how many of you are in the lower 50% of intelligence here at Slashdot? Oh...nobody, right?) Everyone THINKS they should be making the decisions, and of course they all KNOW that those in charge are actually numbskulls.

      Well, the U.S. Army has been doing its job for many, many years. Most of those years successfully. They have learned a few things along the way, and now a lot of those things are part of the Army doctrine.

      A lot of people think they just simply 'know better'- and want to throw away the experience of tens of millions of people who came before them, who set down policies, procedures, tactics and strategies that work. Well, one of the hardest parts of truly being part of a team, or cohesive unit, is learning that no- I might not know better- but possibly by listening to those with experience I can learn, and someday when I really know what I am talking about, I can add some of my own insight- once it actually is worthwhile.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    12. Re:High Tech in the right place? by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps working towards avoiding real-world confrontation would be a more admirable goal? You know, compromise, diplomacy, accepting that others may see the world differently to you?

      Now that could be good training. Deal with the conflict before getting your dicks (sorry, guns) out, hmmm?

      Plenty of people study political theory and international relations.

      However, the first lesson to learn from "accepting that others may see the world differently to you?" is that not everyone is interested in "diplomacy" and "compromise". Some see diplomacy as reaching the "correct" solution to a problem. Many others see it as trying to extract as much out of the other side as possible. What do you do when the two side can't even decide what diplomacy is?

      And what happens, say, when people like Slobodan Milosevic decide to kill all the Muslims in their country simply because he doesn't like them? Compromise? "Well, what about if you only kill half the Muslims?" Accept that others may see the world differently to you? "Well, *I* don't think killing all the Muslims is a good idea, but who am I to judge?"

      There is a time for diplomacy and a time for war. There is a time for compromise and understanding, and a time for standing up for yourself and your ideals. But anyway that's not the military's job. That is what our elected officials are for.

      Brian Ellenberger

    13. Re:High Tech in the right place? by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      And this sentiment relates to the article in what way?

      We are talking about training for confrontation. Not the politics that lead us to it.

      It is typically the politicians, in their expensive suits, comfortable houses, and nice cars that send the military out into battle.

      Those who end up doing the fighting are not allowed to use diplomacy, or compromise. Typically they are victims of diplomacy.

      Telling a soldier about diplomacy will be met with an ironic stare- because it is not his job. If he had a choice, would he be sent out to a foreign county, to be shot at- to be separated from his family, to be hot, cold, miserable and tired? No...so by the time he is out there, it is because others have failed in their duty- now he has to do his job the best he can.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    14. Re:High Tech in the right place? by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      ...no, there are just a vast number of people who are of the common opinion that the military does not hold a monopoly in competency and that not everyone entering the military does so at a time when they are deserving of the sort of derision that drips off your every word.

      Bear in mind, there are more civilians in the world with more hands-on experience in war than the average American in any branch of our military. We just have bigger weapons and, perhaps as you have so perceptively noted, bigger balls.

    15. Re:High Tech in the right place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually DARPA is working on a project named DARWARS to maintain continuous warfare for training on computer -- the goal being of training the **cognitive aspects** of every soldier through simulated experiences, while the physical aspects would be trained in the standard way.

      The idea behind DARWARS is that the military should be in a permanent (virtual) war against oponents stronger than any real oponent in order to dissuade real oponents from any real war.

    16. Re:High Tech in the right place? by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      Thank you. You sir, just explained what I have tried to tell people before, but much better than I could have.

      Diplomacy is great, so is compromise, but there are times when the other side is not willing to use either. The only question is, when do you say, okay, i've tried diplomacy, and it failed, now I'm gonna wipe your scumbag face off the planet?

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    17. Re:High Tech in the right place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree, the other side usually has no want for diplomacy. Of course this only holds water if America is the "other side."

    18. Re:High Tech in the right place? by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      Yes- absolutely, there are civilians all around the world with far more experience in war.

      First- if we did learn from them, and openly tried to fight a war in the same way that they do- the international 'community' would come down on us so hard, I would NEVER be able to get that new WEGA I've been looking at. Putting bombs on busses may be effective, but unfortunatly we cannot overtly fight that type of battle.

      So- we are forced to use Americans that have experience fighting war with the tools and tactics available to us. Women strapped with plastic explosives do not appear in our inventory at all.

      Coincidently, those American veterans, have experience with the same weapons, the same tactics, and the same political leanings as the current Army.

      So while the typical Afgani fighter may be able to teach us how to live in a cave for months at a time, and come out, and strike- then move back into the civilian population...we don't really use that information. On the other hand, I don't know how much they could tell us about a combined air/ground attack using helicopters, tanks, artillery, satellite intelligence, softening the target using bombers, etc. I will have to trust Americans with that one.

      The original start of this article had to do with essentially crowd control. Sending out your hardened and experienced fighters from around the world, to try to control a protest, in an area prone to violence, would be like sending the Hells Angels out to do security at a Rolling Stones concert. It might appear to be a cheap and effective means of security, and the Angels might be a lot 'cooler' than having cops in uniforms...but in the end it might not turn out well.

      Obviously you think the American military is a bunch of idiots- but really- we aren't. We just try to make it look that way...

      --
      No reason to lie.
    19. Re:High Tech in the right place? by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think the American military is full of idiots. However, the ones who immediately think that anyone not in the American military with more experience in war must be living in a cave strapping bombs to their daughters certainly qualify. It's not that I don't have any respect for the U.S. military. It's just that you don't seem to have respect for anyone BUT the U.S. military.

      Since to keep that respect for battlefield experience requires the maintenance of ongoing war every four to eight years, that's a very dangerous attitude.

    20. Re:High Tech in the right place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps working towards avoiding real-world confrontation would be a more admirable goal? You know, compromise, diplomacy, accepting that others may see the world differently to you?

      Go ask Nevelle Chamberlain how well diplomacy works.

    21. Re:High Tech in the right place? by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      Because this entire story/thread is about the tactics of the US military, I just assumed that maybe they should be held up as the experts. In fact, I don't believe that anyone else in the world knows more about the US military tactics than...the US military.

      Of course, in your line of arguement, you want to suggest that the army is full of people with an IQ of 65 who carry guns and yell. You assume that intelligence is always the most important factor for a soldier- while I would argue that it is actually the ability to follow orders, and perform the task as required that is the most important qualities of a lower-ranking soldier. It is not the privates job to make the decisions, because he does not have all of the information required. He is just a pawn, or a tool, for the higher ranking soldiers, whether that be an NCO, or an officer, to use to get their objectives met. The strength of the US military does not lie in its heros- but in the ability for the entire operation to work towards achieving a much bigger goal.

      I said that it is the experience of these higher ranking soldiers that makes them more important. You rebutted with comments that people all around the world have more experience fighting war than some of our soldiers. Once again, I tried to bring the conversation back on track- I agreed that there are people with more experience fighting war- but we have the most experience fighting our type of war.

      It is starting to get very evident, that you are a prime example of the type of person I was referring to earlier. You have zero expeience with the U.S. Military, (other than your intimate knowledge with a few E-9s) yet you know how the military should be run.

      That is exactly what the military needs to avoid.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    22. Re:High Tech in the right place? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1



      Agreed. Diplomacy did not work in Iraq. We had no choice but to get him so we would not be attacked from his load upon load of proven biological and nuclear weapons.

      America needs to be safe and do things alone when all possible.

    23. Re:High Tech in the right place? by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

      Your trolling now, right?

      If not, I suggest you start paying attention to the news.


      There was no threat. There was no proof.


      Even The White House admits it.


      Seriously dude, you gotta stop watching Fox News!

      .02

      cLive ;-)

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    24. Re:High Tech in the right place? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Hehe.

      I was putting in sarcasm.

      Many think we need this WWII style military ( yes, we have the same military as WWII to fight 2 global conflicts at once). The Un's job is to prevent world wars like what happened in the 30's.

      Conservatives hate the UN and hate spending but gladly hand over their wallets to go alone and have a huge military. Why?

      Go read my above post. Appearently they seriously believe the UN is no longer necessary and irrelivant and its our job to invade countries in a moments gleam.

      Diplomacy could save us alot of money. It worked with China did it not?

    25. Re:High Tech in the right place? by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

      lol - I guess I was high from my +5 Insightful :)

      cLive ;-)

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    26. Re:High Tech in the right place? by mikegre · · Score: 1

      "...when people like Slobodan Milosevic decide to kill all the Muslims in their country..."

      This isn't the first time this has happened. King Ferdinand booted all the Muslims out of Spain in 1492.

      Do you think there might be something about the tenents of their religion that is the cause of this?

  18. Project Albert by alohaglide · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting to see some of the work that the Project Albert people have done moved into an immersive space like this. Project Albert is focused on running simple agent-based simulations over and over (1-1000000x) to examine emergent behaviors in particular situations.

  19. Above real time training... by vkg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    sorry, should have put this in the other post, but there's also ARTT - above real time training, where you run the sim 30% faster, people's reflexes speed up, and then in the real world they often have a 10% edge once they've reacclimatized to regular speed reality.

    I really do worry about the simulator-shock aspect of this: both in terms of creating unrealistic expectations on the part of the soliders, but also in terms of people slipping into "gamespace" on the battle field.

    ARRL (advanced robotics research limited) used to do a lot of VR work in Britain, and they wouldn't let people drive for about an hour or two after they'd been in the VR because people often drove in very odd ways, including being very agressive and taking foolish risks. They pinned it down to two things, if I remember correctly:

    1> Simulator artefacts, as outlined in the other post.
    2> The sense of "unreality" which pervaded the real world after having been inside for a while...

    People didn't feel like the real world was real any more after even three hours in a VR system. Somehow the brain figures out "well, I can run into walls and I don't feel anything, I must be dreaming(?)" or something like that?

    I don't know exactly, but stories like that give me a very, very bad feeling about extending the use of simulator based training even further. it might not be VR, but I won't be surprised if the problems are similar.

    The psychological effects are so subtle, but potentially so important. I think we might do much, much better investing these resources in better real-world training for troops than sims.

    1. Re:Above real time training... by metlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thats one of the reasons I think AR (Augmented Reality) is cool. Its not the same as VR simply because you are still in your environment.

      And you can add extra soldiers and people around whom you can shoot/fight with and whatever.

      I do know that my school has a project on Battlefield Visualization using AR, and I'm quite surprised that AR isn't as widespread as VR. Agreed, it does have its own set of issues with long term usage. However, if you tried doing something stupid in AR like running against a wall, you WILL hit yourself and you WILL be hurt.

      And with a sufficiently complex AR system, you would not know the difference between who's real and who is not (dim the lights, add a few real soldiers and a few virtual ones and you will not know who's who).

      I really wonder why this is not as widespread as VR.

    2. Re:Above real time training... by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      The last time I looked at AR, there were the following issues:

      1. Tracking. This is a biggie, since you want to make sure that what you want to add is seamlessly integrated to what you're actually seeing. Things like GPS, intertial tracking, etc. are needed, but suffer from lag and displacement error (very disorienting when you turn, and an object suddenly ghosts from one point to another). Magnetic and edge-based tracking also have issues outside of a carefully controlled environment.

      2. Display (which leads to weight and power issues.) Do you use a half silvered system which superimposes items on your field of view (ghosts), or do you use dual cameras with a full opaqued HMD to simulate vision? The first method is less realistic, the second method is cumbersome even with modern ccd cameras and displays.

      3. Cost. It takes money to equip enough soldiers with this kind of equipment, and build an environment that can use all of the bells and whistles to maximum effect. For less money and prep time, you can do a blank-fire exercise in a purpose-built structure, and you can run many more soldiers through. Yes, with well designed AR (which doesn't always have to rely on soldiers equipped with HMDs, BTW - stereophonic headsets can be used to "augment" reality very well) can enhance a training experience. Problem is, we aren't even spending the money to do blank-fire exercises (regular army is much better trained than reserve/nat guard, but reserve and nat guard are on long deployments also). Unless AR equipment becomes the next gamer sensation, resulting in readily available, super-cheap, high-end, and reliable equipment, don't expect any major deployments of AR based training tools.

      As to why VR is more widespread than AR, VR is an easier problem, since your entire environment is in the computer. Integrating a changing environment (the user is moving, thereby changing what needs to be shown) with a changing virtual environment, outside of a tethered research lab or CAVE is not an easy task.

    3. Re:Above real time training... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      wouldn't let people drive for about an hour or two after they'd been in the VR because people often drove in very odd ways...I don't know exactly, but stories like that give me a very, very bad feeling about extending the use of simulator based training even further. it might not be VR, but I won't be surprised if the problems are similar. The psychological effects are so subtle, but potentially so important.

      The effects don't last long enough to be a problem. There will always be a period of several hours, days, or even weeks between when a soldier uses the simulator and when he goes into combat. When I went to Panama in '89 with the 7th Light Infantry it was on very short notice and it was a day and a half from "go" till we finally got into a HMMWV to drive into Panama City.

      I think we might do much, much better investing these resources in better real-world training for troops than sims.

      There's not a whole lot they can do to make current real-world training much better without making it truly dangerous. Besides, it's not like they're replacing field training exercises with a computer sim.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Above real time training... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Thats one of the reasons I think AR (Augmented Reality) is cool. Its not the same as VR simply because you are still in your environment. And you can add extra soldiers and people around whom you can shoot/fight with and whatever. I really wonder why this is not as widespread as VR.

      Overlaying synthesized graphics on the real world is very, very difficult. Keeping the fake soldiers aligned with the real world when the soldier is whipping his head around looking for someone; knowing where real-world walls and trees are in order to display/not display/partially display fake soldiers; knowing if a synthetic soldier is hit when a real soldier shoots at him; etc. Too much to keep track of.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:Above real time training... by gribbly · · Score: 1

      I totally buy what you're saying. I used to play a lot of Quake 2 CTF (for hours after work, in intense team games). Often, when walking or riding home afterwards, I'd hear Quake sound effects and experience a minor flight/fight response (nothing spectacular... but my heart would certainly speed up a notch). I'd also be generally edgy and amped.

      I know from personal experience that "VR" (well... Quake anyway) can carry over into real life!

      Do you have a reference on the "ARTT" stats you quote? 30% -> 10% in RL? That interests me greatly, if it's true.

      grib.

      --
      maybe
    6. Re:Above real time training... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.google.com/search?q=above+real+time+tra ining&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

      Dutch Guckenberger, the guy behind this, is a pretty ugly charactar. Although most of the articles have expired, he was convicted of sexual abuse of minors and run out of his suburb on a rail. Most of the relevant articles have expired from Google, but it's worth knowing if you follow this up.

    7. Re:Above real time training... by aardwolf204 · · Score: 1

      I totally know what you mean. I can remember plenty of times screaming down the road at 20 MPH over the limit only to realize after a few minutes that "Oh wait, this isnt need for speed, I've gotta slow down".

      Of course this has only happened when I drove right after playing a racing game

      --
      Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
  20. Useless! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just cos the bad guys shop at PC World for their asymmetric sims, you have to come up with your own in-house version that's better... That's like those newbies complaining that the teams aren't even.

    but I bet you're using the HL2 engine huh, huh?

  21. This could create something bad by generationxyu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Notice how a bunch of 12 year olds break bones because they think they can skateboard? I mean, they totally beat Tony Hawk in like, 2 days.

    --
    I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
    1. Re:This could create something bad by broller · · Score: 1

      The civilian version of There is based around chatting and dressing up your avatar (like a paper doll) and of course, shopping for those clothes. As you can see, the FPS gamer isn't who There is after, but housewives and stay-at-home moms are.

      So:
      1) Socializing (mainly with women)
      2) Fashion
      3) Shopping

      Does this sound like a place that 12 year old gamers shouldn't emulate?

  22. Obligatory Tom Cruise quote: by DwarfGoanna · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "I bet ten years from now, a guy thats good at Stocker(TM) will be a shoe-in at West Point!"


    Seriously though, I wonder if the fact that the government thinks video games are great tools for creating mindless violent automatons lends any weight to the naggy soccer moms claiming the same?


    =)

    --

    "You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo

    1. Re:Obligatory Tom Cruise quote: by herrvinny · · Score: 1

      I bet ten years from now, a guy thats good at Stocker(TM) will be a shoe-in at West Point!"

      You mean Stalker, right?

    2. Re:Obligatory Tom Cruise quote: by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, I wonder if the fact that the government thinks video games are great tools for creating mindless violent automatons lends any weight to the naggy soccer moms claiming the same?

      "Mindless violent automatons" might be useful for the Chinese army, which relies on sheer numbers to win, but for the US army, they'd be worse than useless.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    3. Re:Obligatory Tom Cruise quote: by herrvinny · · Score: 1

      So did the Russian Army during WW2 (See Call Of Duty, it's a nice WW2 sim, or the Wikipedia entries for WW2, Stalin, and The Great Patriotic War).

      Seriously though, if the US or Russia ever went up against China (Like in Tom Clancy's The Bear And The Dragon ), we might have to resort to a tactical nuke or something, the Chinese army is HUGE..

    4. Re:Obligatory Tom Cruise quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do games help your reflexes? Your team work skills? Your ability to strategize and think logically? Yes, yes, and yes.

      Do they make you more likely to kill? No.

    5. Re:Obligatory Tom Cruise quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mindless violent automatons" might be useful for the Chinese army, which relies on sheer numbers to win

      I believe someone here has played too much C&C: Generals...

    6. Re:Obligatory Tom Cruise quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Seriously though, if the US or Russia ever went up against China (Like in Tom Clancy's The Bear And The Dragon ), we might have to resort to a tactical nuke or something, the Chinese army is HUGE..

      Naw, we have superior conventional firepower. I'd put 1 of our soldiers with modern equipment up against 1000 of the chinks.

    7. Re:Obligatory Tom Cruise quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw, we have superior conventional firepower. I'd put 1 of our soldiers with modern equipment up against 1000 of the chinks.

      Amazing. I knew that Americans are brainwashed into believing they're superior beings, but this is just ridiculous.

    8. Re:Obligatory Tom Cruise quote: by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Huge, perhaps. But the odds of our actually attempting to occupy the Chinese mainland are slim to none. So, the real question is where would be fighting this enormous army? If they attempt to ship those soldiers onto our turf we can pick them off piecemeal. The real threat of the Chinese army is economic: that force pays for itself by working in manufacturing plants selling stuff to us to maintain the trade deficit.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  23. Press button to kill 10,000 people [ok][cancel] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful


    war is easy, guided missiles ?, shock and awe, its all so easy when i just press a button on my screen and 1000's die i don't even have to think they are real people

    a lot of war is already like a video game, and killing is so much easier when you don't have to look at your enemies face when you kill him and his family

    1. Re:Press button to kill 10,000 people [ok][cancel] by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      This might be interesting but it is false. It is not as easy as pushing a button. The ships/subs/planes that launch those missiles are manned by highly trained experts who practice constantly to try and do it right. They still make mistakes even with all that. Real war is nothing like any video game you will buy off the shelf today.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    2. Re:Press button to kill 10,000 people [ok][cancel] by Graelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      a lot of war is already like a video game, and killing is so much easier when you don't have to look at your enemies face when you kill him and his family

      Funny, I bet the 156,000 troops in Iraq would have a different opinion.

      You have a good point, land-based long range missles take a lot of the human factor out. But I think you're missing the real point. They're purpose is just as much about protecting our troops as is it inflicting damage. One way or another we're going to strike - so would you rather do it safely? I would. And if you were a member of the US Armed Forces you would too.

      You would do better to complain about the accuracy of the weapon instead of it's destructive power. (That being said, these weapons have amazing accuracy.)

    3. Re:Press button to kill 10,000 people [ok][cancel] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You obviously didn't get it at all. The crews on the subs and ships might have a hard time reloading their missile launchers or whatever they do, but all they see is how the missiles go up in the sky and maybe later they're told that the mission was successful. They're never in a really dangerous situation, never have a rifle pointed at their heads and never have to look someone in the eye before killing him.

      I wouldn't call someone brave who's spent the war on a ship doing nothing but watching missiles or planes going off.

    4. Re:Press button to kill 10,000 people [ok][cancel] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing SHOULD NOT be easy at all. If George W. Bush had actually participated in a war himself as a front soldier instead of going AWOL, he would have a much harder time ordering invasions of foreign countries. But he has not and so war is like a video game to him. It's not real enough.

    5. Re:Press button to kill 10,000 people [ok][cancel] by BirdTracker · · Score: 1
      Plus the fact that the way the current military is moving is to less destructive weapons so that we do not have to kill the families. The US military could have flattened Bahgdad and any other force that resisted us without as much danger to the troops, but that is not the point anymore.

      That's why you don't hear about carpet bombing anymore unless you are watching the history channel (Which is one of the best stations IMO).

    6. Re:Press button to kill 10,000 people [ok][cancel] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Which is one of the best stations IMO).

      Because it's all about American revisionist history?

    7. Re:Press button to kill 10,000 people [ok][cancel] by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      This is really late- so you'll probably never see it. But I do get it - you don't.

      One of the most dangerous jobs in the world is working on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. Flying military aircraft, working on a sub- these are all inherently dangerous activities.

      I'd be curious to see a comparison on the rate of deaths in the military right now as opposed to a time of 'peace'.

      Do they look the enemy in the eye? No. Are the guys in iraq leaving roadside bombs or launching RPGs looking anybody in the eye? That went out with swords. Hand to hand combat has not been common for a long time- way before cruise missiles.

      I don't know what determines who is brave. A lot of guys who I think are brave would not characterize themselves that way. But you completely underestimate the difficulty in what the modern American military does. I think this is in part because they do it so well that people now take it for granted as routine. But if you talk to those involved you may find that very little of it is routine. That is true in actual combat or just in practice.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  24. Too bad by chrispl · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet if it was going to be REALLY cool someone would steal the source code and ruin it for the rest of us...

    --
    What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
  25. My hopes are dashed by stoolpigeon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    .. that this thread would be slightly better than the similar thread on fark a day or two ago. sigh....

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  26. Uniques by k_killmore · · Score: 5, Funny

    It will be interesting to see how our troops will deal with real world combat when they don't have the same Ikthar's Ring of Thorns that gives them +2 to all skills, 40% more likely to find magic item, and 130% damage. u got SSoJ?

    1. Re:Uniques by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll be like those idiot LARPers (live action role playing freaks). They'll wander around in bad costumes on the battle field, thwacking enemies with their guns and yelling "2 magic 2 magic 2 magic!".

  27. Why not privatize? by dasuridai · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems to me that this is the perfect opportunity to save a few of our taxpaying bucks and contract with a gaming company that has an existing game. Pay the coders to add a the necessary training features and you have saved a bunch of redundant work. Don't reinvent the wheel guys!

    1. Re:Why not privatize? by Cali+Thalen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, that's pretty much what's happening. There.com is a 'gaming' or virtual world site that has regular paying members. The software used to run it is the same (basic) software that the Army is using to train with. Obviously modified to fit the situation.

      Not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, but no matter which one came first, it's an existng game, so you can stop worrying about your tax dollars.

      --
      Chaos, panic, disorder...my work here is done.
    2. Re:Why not privatize? by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      America's Army was built on top of the Unreal engine, so there's at least one pre-existing model for development out there. Not only that, but America's Army is multi-platform (Mac and Linux, as well as the all-pervasive Windows PC) with minimal (probably about a month or two) lag between Windows and non-Windows releases. For a free game, this is pretty good - plenty of for-profit companies can't even get a multiplatform release out at all, much less one that keeps the feature lag to a minimum.

      Personally, I'd love for them to incorporate more training classes (land nav, care and feeding of your M16A2, chemical warfare, etc.) as well as extending the existing training on first aid. Heh, they've even got the damn Powerpoint-powered classrooms down. Just wait till the Navy releases their simulator - take marine nav and train onboard a ship, taking bearing, plotting course, and trying to figure out if the light in front of you is another ship or a lighthouse...

    3. Re:Why not privatize? by rnd() · · Score: 1

      There.com is really pretty amazing... I look at games roughly every 5 years and am blown away by the progress. This one's worth a look... sign up today at www.there.com

      Also, the there.com interface is 100% xml and flash, plus a rendering engine for the 3D. They have a bunch of developer documentation in case you want to code something up. Most of the software written by people is free, but some people sell theirs. Check out www.tbux.com for the place where the people who sell things to there.com members go to turn their income back into real money. If you know flash and enough action script to handle being a soap client, you're well on your way to creating some cool gizmos that people will go crazy for. One example of something that already exists is a "GPS Unit" that is able to calculate latitude, longitude, and altitude.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

  28. Government efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bet this turns out to be largest price ever paid for a copy of battlefield 1942.

  29. War Games? by Groovus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ever see that movie?

    I'm not so sure this is a great idea.

    Firstly, I don't know of any guys on the pro golf circuit who got there because they're the man at sim golf. I doubt that I'd want someone who kicks butt at rollercoaster tycoon making amusement parks and rollcosters for public use. You get the idea.

    Sure you have simulators which people use for training - but those are incredibly expensive incredibly specialized pieces of equipment. Real life pilots aren't using MS flight simulator to get their licenses. And this war game stuff sure doesn't sound like anything more than Everquest set in a modern day war zone.

    Secondly, do we really need to be spending more public funding to reach an even larger audience to teach them the best way to kill people? Even if it's just the abstract virtual kind of killing with no "real" repercussions. I mean, if you want to be a soldier, go ahead and sign up, get the real training, see what it's like to actually have to wake up at 0500 and hit the obstacle course, fire off a few rounds, get disciplined, maybe even go off and have to be personally responsible for the death and maiming of a few other human beings because that's your job. Do we really need an MMORPG for this? Shouldn't we be spending this money on teaching people how NOT to kill each other, or adressing the issues that make it so people want to kill their fellow man in the first place? Then we might not need so many soldiers.

    Sorry, that's just crazy talk - by all means it's a great idea to teach Johnny and Janie how to frag. That's invaluable job skill training that will benefit humanity. Heck in that case, why not make it a required course to graduate High School? Sponsored by the military-industrial complex near you.

    My tax dollars at work indeed.

    1. Re:War Games? by El · · Score: 1

      Yeah, fine but... how sophisticated a skill set to you need to KILL PEOPLE, for pete's sake!

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    2. Re:War Games? by metlin · · Score: 1

      Wonderful comment, thank you!

      Added you as a friend just for this one comment, hats off!

    3. Re:War Games? by WNight · · Score: 1

      Very. If you want to kill them before they kill you. Pulling a trigger is easy, hitting what you aim at isn't very hard, but doing it without getting killed and while shooting the right people to help the tactical situation - yeah, that'd be hard.

    4. Re:War Games? by WNight · · Score: 1

      Actually, "real" pilots often do spend hours in MS Flightsim or similar program (often marketed as a game) practicing. They recommend it for beginners and many experienced pilots use it to practice seldom-used skills.

      Even less realistic sims have uses in teaching real-world skills. I can see using an RTS-type game to train people in quickly thinking and responding to complex situations.

      The military sim probably isn't supposed to simulate crawling through the jungle killing people, but how to avoid common mistakes that newbies get killed from. How to use terrain, how to react to ambush, etc. Also, it could teach the use of tools the soldier hadn't used before, like navigation via compass readings, or using a laser spotter to guide incoming air strikes, or squad movement.

      No substitute for field work, but a good complement to it probably.

    5. Re:War Games? by Polyphemis · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't we be spending this money on teaching people how NOT to kill each other, or adressing the issues that make it so people want to kill their fellow man in the first place?

      Well, yeah, that'd be nice, but that will never happen. We'd have to train everyone in the world for that to actually work, and people aren't reasonable or intelligent enough to ever accept that kind of training on a large scale. It's easier to hate than think, so hate will nearly always win.

      I'm just glad we do have a strong and capable army. I'd never want to be a part of it myself, but this army has done a lot for us as a country and preserving our freedom. I don't like that some situations have no recourse but to be settled with violence, but if that's the only way to solve it, then expediency wins.

      I know this could easily turn into a fiery discussion, so I'd like to say that I have no interest at all in pursuing unrelated exceptions to what I've said. I'm well aware that there's a thousand books' worth of exceptions and disclaimers that could be said about this subject. However, they don't have anything to do with my main point: people will never be good enough to end violence, and I'd rather we used it when necessary than take chances.

    6. Re:War Games? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Sure you have simulators which people use for training - but those are incredibly expensive incredibly specialized pieces of equipment. Real life pilots aren't using MS flight simulator to get their licenses. And this war game stuff sure doesn't sound like anything more than Everquest set in a modern day war zone.

      It isn't a replacement for real-world training, it's in addition to it. Your argument is bizarre and unrealistic.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    7. Re:War Games? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont like it? move to france and surrender. its more peaceful that way.

    8. Re:War Games? by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't we be spending this money on teaching people how NOT to kill each other, or adressing the issues that make it so people want to kill their fellow man in the first place?

      Drill Instructor: Damn it! You hit the target! What are you trying to do? Kill the guy?

      In all honesty, the point of this isn't to make soldiers insensitive to killing any more than any other kind of training. It's just another way of teaching tactics so that perhaps our soldiers' lives would be saved.

      Don't get this confused with something like Quake. They're not going to be killing a four headed monster that shoots fireballs.

    9. Re:War Games? by slappyjack · · Score: 1

      They're not going to be killing a four headed monster that shoots fireballs.

      But it would be frikking cool as hell if bigass monsters just suddenty showed up. Talk about a test of nerve and adaptability.

      "AAAAAGH!!! GIANT DEMON SCORPION-BITCHES!!! WHO THE FUCK IS LOLTH?!?!?!"

      "Standard issue Railguns?!?! ROCK!"

      "That's no MIG, Its a Balrog!"

      "What the fuck are you talking about? No, no, Mr President, we have no idea what the hell a +4 Vorpal Sword of Morlgatha is, but I suggest you get the skunkworks on it immediately."

      (nerds, rejoice!)

    10. Re:War Games? by yummy1991 · · Score: 0

      You cant compare everyday normal _civilian_ activities with those of the military.

      Saying the military shouldnt have the oppurtunity to use a new form of training to better ready itself for combat is crazy. What makes you so sure that a soldier wont take what he learns in such a simulator to heart? After all, we (yes, im a soldier - usarmy) are fighting for our lives when we go out there.

      > Shouldn't we be spending this money on teaching people how NOT to kill each other, or adressing the issues that make it so people want to kill their fellow man in the first place? Then we might not need so many soldiers.

      "For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and
      armed militia is their best security."
      - Thomas Jefferson: message to Congress, Nov. 1808

      In other words - to have peace we must be ready to fight for it.

      Sergey

    11. Re:War Games? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      There is a story, completely true, about an Austrailian military helicopter sim. They wanted some kangaroos, so they took the logic that controlled infantry men, slapped some kangaroo models onto them, and there you go.

      Then, one day, they were doing a dog and pony show for some bigwigs. The pilot decided to buzz a group of kangaroos, which, of course, they'd never do during 'real' training. The big wigs all ooh'd and aahhh'd when the kangaroos broke and ran from the helicopter. Then they were stunned as the kangaroos found cover, broke out the stinger missiles, and shot down said virtual helicopter.

      Turns out that they'd inherited more than just the movement routines from the infantry objects....

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    12. Re:War Games? by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1


      Well learning how to quietly sneak up behind people with a knife has proven to be an invaluable skill for me in the business world.

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  30. Re:So all my FPS playing make me military material by zeux · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hum... Quake ?

    I sure wouldn't try a rocket jump in real life, would you ?

  31. Warfare where the bad guys don't stand still by vkg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    American military superiority is now so huge that nobody in their right minds is going to face us on an open battle field without air superiority, which basically ain't going to happen.

    So at that point, people are adapting rapidly and finding ways to attack american political will and infrastructure: in Iraq, that's putting GIs in body bags and blowing up oil facilities.

    It's not clear to anybody that an organized, hierarchical military force is capable of victory against guerillas, even in a desert environment. Nobody's going to come out and say that, but it's implicit in the work of John Boyd, a fighter pilot and philosopher who is widely hailed as the father of the F16 and it's entire school of fighter design, and the Air-Ground War doctrine which is the bedrock of military strategy for the USA.

    Boyd basically suggests that hierarchies are inherently a bottleneck on the battlefield, and that the time it takes information to percolate to the level a decision can be made on is a critical point of attack for fast, light, independent forces.

    So if you have cohesion and collective planning, you have slowness and are vulnerable. But if you have no central control, then you're not an army, you're a rabble.

    That's why there's so much of a focus on netwar and similar concepts in current US military thought: we're trying to figure out how to beat sheep farmers with RPGs.

    You can read a lot of Boyd's though online: check out Google's pages Boyd's OODA loop for more info.

    1. Re:Warfare where the bad guys don't stand still by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      An interesting bit science-fiction reading along these lines might be Friedmann's "A Small Colonial War" and it's sequels.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    2. Re:Warfare where the bad guys don't stand still by EinarH · · Score: 1
      American military superiority is now so huge that nobody in their right minds is going to face us on an open battle field without air superiority, which basically ain't going to happen.
      I agree. But that is in the near future. If one look longer ahead I think China can challenge the US air superiority within 30 years.

      If the economies of the two countries continues to grow at yhe same rate as the last ten years, USA with a 2.5% yearly growth and China at 7.5% there is only a matter of time before China will be the worlds leading economy.
      And since China are developing a market based capitalist system that will allow them to scale much better than what the Soviet Union did.

      Right now they are far behind and they buys most of their stuff from Russia and France. And their industry is mostl low tech compared to USA. But they have shown that they are willing to invest in defence. If you factor in that they are 3.5 times the number of people it's posssible for them to challenge USA within 30 years. If they want to.

      (sorry for my late night beer-english with typos)

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    3. Re:Warfare where the bad guys don't stand still by fbg111 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they want to.

      Oh they want to. For the past ~300 years they've gotten dumped on by everyone from their nearest neighbors to the West, and they're tired of it. The "Middle Kingdom" was never meant to play second fiddle to anyone. It's simply unfortunate that their current government happens to be a Communist regime responsible for more mass murders than any other since Ghengis Khan. People around the world may criticize America for being too militaristic and "imperialistic", but at least our transgressions come in spite of the spirit of our laws. The transgressions of Communism on the other come in accordance with the spirit of their laws.

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    4. Re:Warfare where the bad guys don't stand still by Animats · · Score: 1
      It's not clear to anybody that an organized, hierarchical military force is capable of victory against guerillas, even in a desert environment.

      The US military is doing fine in deserts. But that's not good enough. Hostile deserts aren't a big problem to the US Army. Hostile cities are. Now that we own Bagdad, what do we do with it? Or Tikrit or Kabul or Mogadishu. Mao wrote "The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue". That may not have been original with him, but he went further with it than anyone before or since.

      We also need to develop doctrine on how to take down a religion. It's not impossible. We've done it before. State Shinto is dead. We need to learn how to marginalize clerics and make them irrelevant.

  32. hmm by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

    does this mean we'll be seeing more dead soldiers before the hit the battlefield? soon, we'll be seeing bunkers filled with pasty military men hanging from the cieling with notes on their bunks saying:

    "My character died, my life is worthless and pointless, goodbye world!"

  33. Re:So all my FPS playing make me military material by killthiskid · · Score: 1

    Well, ultimately it depends on the situation... you'd be amazed what you might try when other people are trying very hard to kill you, and you them.

  34. And the most important thing, of course... by herrvinny · · Score: 1

    When do we get to play it?

    1. Re:And the most important thing, of course... by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1

      There are allready 5 copies of the Pre-Alpha on Kazaa : of which 4 are Egyptian Goat pr0n.

  35. The worst wars are evenly matched. by vkg · · Score: 1

    Where one side has a huge advantage, usually the war is swift, people surrender, and all's well. Put 'em in a camp, feed them, send them home.

    The first Gulf War broke those rules, because we massacred 150 - 300, 000 retreating troops.

    But, in general, I'd rather our soliders were well equipt, capable, and used wisely, rather than being poorly equpt, careless and used for imperialist aggression.

    A strong American military is why Hitler and Stalin didn't wind up ruling the world, and don't forget it. Yes, and idiot like Bush is a big problem, but don't let bad leaders convince you that american military power is a bad thing. It's what kept the world free, and don't ever let anybody tell you different.

    1. Re:The worst wars are evenly matched. by king-manic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      News flash:
      A strong Russian military and resource starved germany is why Hitler and Stalin didn't wind up ruling the world, and don't forget it.
      Russia always strogn and The british caused the second condition. america helped with the second condition but mostly supplied resources and came in after to claim victory. The americans were important but not the #1 or #2 reason that the war was won.

      Now a Strong American army is why we don't all have a mad itch to play pokemon and watch tentacle porn..... omg... Did we lose the pacific theatre?

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    2. Re:The worst wars are evenly matched. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In just about any Western-style war (since classical times) it is typical that retreating troops will be attacked to the extent that it is possible.

      Traditionally, the big no-no is to attack troops that have surrendered. But retreating guys are generally considered "fair game", especially since anyone who is not surrendering may just be regrouping to attack you again.

      What was different about the Gulf War was that the US's overwhelming advantage meant the retreating Iraqi forces could be (and were) utterly slaughtered. And although each Iraqi soldier did have the opportunity to try to surrender or to desert, the nature of airborne attack is such that many targets don't see much reason to surrender until it is too late.

      Fortunately the US learned quite a bit from the whole "highway of death" experience. So this time around, instead of crushing the entire Iraqi army, they concentrated on embarrassing the Iraqi government enough that the Iraqi population would finally reject it.

      Whether or not I think the war was justified, I have to admit the US forces succeeded in deposing Saddam very quickly and with many fewer deaths on either side than anyone expected.

    3. Re:The worst wars are evenly matched. by pantycrickets · · Score: 1

      A strong Russian military and resource starved germany is why Hitler and Stalin didn't wind up ruling the world, and don't forget it.

      Yeah, a lot of people don't know that over 12 million Russian soldiers died in WWII. The Germans were tapped on that front. We bombed the shit out of Japan, but really.. I don't think they posed much of a threat to mainland America anyway. With all of their secrecy and military buildup, etc.. all they could really manage to target was a remote US military outpost (Hawaii).

    4. Re:The worst wars are evenly matched. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A strong American army is arguably why pokemon ("pocket monsters") was created. But I have no idea what sick twisted influence led to the development of tentacle porn. Maybe it was the frustration of salarymen who suddenly had to confront the horror of equal rights.

    5. Re:The worst wars are evenly matched. by Wingnut64 · · Score: 1

      A strong American military is why Hitler and Stalin didn't wind up ruling the world, and don't forget it.

      Actually, a strong American Economy is what broke the Axis (that and the 10 million Russians who died fighting Hitler). As any RTS player can tell you, once you can build and ship hardware to the front faster then the enemy can sink it, you've already won, it's only a question of time.

      --
      echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >> /etc/apache2/httpd.conf
    6. Re:The worst wars are evenly matched. by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      Japan was going to drop bombs of fleas infected with the plaque on San Diego. The only reason they didn't is because the US dropped the nukes on them a few weeks before they were going to attack.

    7. Re:The worst wars are evenly matched. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The first Gulf War broke those rules, because we massacred 150 - 300, 000 retreating troops.

      Retreating, huh? Maybe they should have surrendered, instead of waving their guns around and shooting in Americans' general direction. No matter how half-hearted and demoralized they are, somehow I think the Americans are going to shoot back. It's fucking war, not a tickling competition!

    8. Re:The worst wars are evenly matched. by websensei · · Score: 1
      Japan was going to drop bombs of fleas infected with the plaque


      I guess those poor fleas didn't have access to tartar control Crest, huh. pity. ;)
      --

      La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
    9. Re:The worst wars are evenly matched. by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
      I don't think they posed much of a threat to mainland America anyway. With all of their secrecy and military buildup, etc.. all they could really manage to target was a remote US military outpost (Hawaii).

      I get the sense that you have no idea how wide the Pacific is. How is it that our side won? You can't even reach Japan from the American mainland, so our military posed no threat to them.

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    10. Re:The worst wars are evenly matched. by pantycrickets · · Score: 1

      You can't even reach Japan from the American mainland, so our military posed no threat to them.

      You're right. The bombs we dropped on them were all stamped with "MADE IN JAPAN" on them. :)

    11. Re:The worst wars are evenly matched. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The banning of visible genitalia led to all kinds of other pr0n. Just look at tubgirl and notice how they censored the "bad parts".

  36. MS puts another tick their bedpost... by Ironica · · Score: 3, Interesting

    [developed by There Inc.]

    I got into their Beta (I think everyone did) and never got the game installed because I refused to upgrade to the latest IE *and* make it my default browser.

    Good to know that someone's doing something to counteract all this Open Source in Government nonsense...

    --
    Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
  37. The want beta testers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can sign up to be a beta tester!

    1. Re:The want beta testers! by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Well done. My hat's off to you.

    2. Re:The want beta testers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably this simulates the chow line?

  38. Ob Wargames quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only way to win is not to play at all.

  39. The Best Possibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Perhaps this will gradually turn into a situation kinda like that one episode of Star Trek where they beam down to a planet that is fighting a simulated war with another planet.

    i.e., if Osama or the French or whoever want to fight the US, they would just log in to the US Army's MMOG and do their fighting online, without actually killing anyone or blowing anything up.

    1. Re:The Best Possibility by Reivec · · Score: 1

      That would never happen...ever.. ever. First off it would put both sides on an equal playing field, the country which is stronger would never agree to this. But the biggest and most obvious problem is that if you won the virtual war, how do you enforce this? You are back to the original problem, you are not going to just magically make people see it your way. The whole reason war exists is because 2 sides a differenec of opinion (to put it mildly) so they try to kill all the people that think otherwise, therefor eliminating any problem. Or actually just killing enough so that the other side knows that they can no longer come out alive and they surrender to keep their lives.

      But yeah, no virtual war would have convinced saddam to just let the US take control over his land and remove his government so that we could search for weapons and put other people in power.

  40. At least it'll make the Army more fashionable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out the Humvees in this simulation.

  41. Well that answers one question by faust2097 · · Score: 1

    A lot of folks have been curious as to how There has managed to stay in business for so long, now we know that it's our tax dollars at work.

  42. If only that was possible. by vkg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Twice in the past 50 years, the American people have defeated monsterous regimes: Hitler, and Stalin. Yes, the cold war never came to blows, but if we had not comitted to contain the USSR at any cost, they would have expanded out of all recogniction.

    Staling murdered nearly three times as many people as Hitler, and Hitler murdered 22 million people, by the estimates of Rudy Rummel of the University of Hawaii, who's extensively studied mass murders in recent history. (search for Democide) on Google.

    We didn't have the choice of "not playing" on either of those occasions, and the reason there are free people left is that we won those wars.

    Don't knock it. American military strength is a good thing. It's just that our current leaders are imperialist assholes.

    1. Re:If only that was possible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't knock it. American military strength is a good thing. It's just that our current leaders are imperialist assholes.

      And because that case should never happen - the one where imperialist assholes are in command of the largest military in the world - it's a BAD thing to concentrate military strength in the US. Is that so hard to understand?

    2. Re:If only that was possible. by vkg · · Score: 1

      You would rather concentrate it in China? Or North Korea?

    3. Re:If only that was possible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. I would obviously balance it. Especially Europe should get some more. I can't believe that the idiots over there are actually reducing their military budget while we keep increasing ours. If I were them I'd really shit my pants now after seeing what the US is up to.

    4. Re:If only that was possible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, it is hard to understand...or do you want cuba successfully invading us you commie bastard?

    5. Re:If only that was possible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were young?

    6. Re:If only that was possible. by MMaestro · · Score: 1

      Now see thats called an arms race.

    7. Re:If only that was possible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already seem to have one, except that no one is racing except the US and everyone else is just standing around doing nothing. It's pretty strange really.

    8. Re:If only that was possible. by jred · · Score: 1

      I'll be honest here, I'd be a hell of a lot more worried if I didn't live in the US. It's one of those situations where the gun always looks 10 times bigger when you're looking down the barrel.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    9. Re:If only that was possible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Technologically advancing your weapons is not an arms race, especially considering most development is going towards non-lethal weapons development. If you consider this to be an arms race, just because you don't hear other nations advancing their weapons programs doesn't mean it isn't happening.

      *cough*NorthKorea*cough*

    10. Re:If only that was possible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twice in the past 50 years, the American people have defeated monsterous regimes: Hitler, and Stalin.

      My history must be a bit messed up here as I don't remember only the American people defeating these regimes, I think there were many more peoples involved. In fact I thought Stalin & his Russian Army were the first into Berlin (possibly a major factor contributing towards the Cold War). I also didn't realise you defeated Stalin, I thought Communism collapsed long after Stalin had died (which along with Hitler was over 50 years ago).

      We didn't have the choice of "not playing" on either of those occasions, and the reason there are free people left is that we won those wars.

      Does this mean that if you had had an option of not playing, you wouldn't have bothered? So it wasn't about freedom/democracy/etc, it was just you had no choice. Lucky for us then otherwise we wouldn't be free if you hadn't won the war?

      Anyway if your going to use history, try and make it reasonably accurate. Maybe if you spent a bit less money on arming yourself and put some of that into education/history you might actually learn something about world events and not have to rely on Hollywood.

      "Don't mention the war. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it."

    11. Re:If only that was possible. by vkg · · Score: 1

      I'm not suggesting the USA *singlehandedly* did anything, only that had they not participated, Hitler would have defeated Britain fairly quickly, and probably Russia would have fallen eventually.

      US economic and later military intervention prevented that.

      And the "policy of containment" prevented the USSR expanding into, say, all of Europe and keeping it's economy afloat by using the resources of Western europe to sustain it's empire. Read some of the policy papers around the time the policy of containment was though up and implimented - they knew exactly what would happen to Soviet Communism, they just thorught it would happen much, much earlier.

    12. Re:If only that was possible. by yourmom16 · · Score: 1
      It is possible that the destruction caused by a Soviet invasion of Western Europe would cost the USSR more than they would have gained.

      If we didn't help defeat Hitler he would have been beaten anyway. The USSR and UK together had enough military power to win, with more casualties, of course. The USSR wouldn't have been as much of a threat had we not helped against Hitler.

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
  43. Existenz by frostman · · Score: 1

    Just make them watch Existenz a couple times a week.

    That oughta fix it.

    --

    This Like That - fun with words!

  44. As long as... by Aardpig · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...they are using computers to simulate asymmetric warfare, they will never gain a decent grasp of what asymmetric warfare is, nor will they understand how to defeat it.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    1. Re:As long as... by laosland · · Score: 1

      "...they are using computers to simulate asymmetric warfare, they will never gain a decent grasp of what asymmetric warfare is, nor will they understand how to defeat it. "

      Oh Great and Learned one, how would they get a decent grasp on what asymmetrical warfare? (/sarcasm off) Do you think that they sit behind a computer all day and play this sim?? This is merely a learning tool for them to use for *part* of their overall training.

    2. Re:As long as... by Aardpig · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh Great and Learned one, how would they get a decent grasp on what asymmetrical warfare? (/sarcasm off)

      Learn how to write correctly first. Then criticize.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  45. Download mirrors up yet? by fbg111 · · Score: 1

    Sweet, what are the system specs and when can we download it? Hope they make it free like America's Army.

    --
    Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
  46. There, Inc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, and the simulator will only run on one type of processer, one operating system, with one kind of video card, and go down every Tuesday. Seriously people, There, Inc. has a lousy track record for compatability. There, Inc. has a deal with some computer manufacturers to build There compatable computers. There, Inc. makes a rather silly MMORPG (if it can even be called that) and I fail to see how they are qualified to make a war simulator.

  47. They were looking at this engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.wwiionline.com

    for there training

    http://www5.playnet.com/bv/wwiiol/movies.jsp

  48. Army guy indicates how serious he is: by Peterius · · Score: 1

    From the article: "'When necessary, the exercises will be password protected,' Grosse continued, indicating its seriousness." I think that's hilarious, I don't know why. He doesn't say 2048 bit RSA with AES, he doesn't say even that the game packets will be encrypted...just "password protected". THAT'S how serious it is.

    1. Re:Army guy indicates how serious he is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much encryption do you really need if you're going to be playing the game on your own, not-connected-to-the-Internet network? I'd like to see a hacker break through the ultimate wireless firewall-- not connecting the damn thing!

  49. Warfare simulated in a computer by allanc · · Score: 1

    Hey, this is great. Maybe this technology can be extended such that all wars are fought in the simulation, with people who are decided to be casualties simply going to their local disintegration booth to be killed. It would save a lot on property damage.

    You know, until Captain Kirk comes along and destroys the main computer, teaching us the error of our ways...

    --AC

    1. Re:Warfare simulated in a computer by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1

      Ahyes, you could also maybe write a book about this, and call it... hmmm, Ender's Game. :P

  50. Make it a true MMO by ghideon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ya know, invite everyone to play. That way you can see tactics from all over the place. A lot of gamers are very good at "gaming the system" or "min/maxing." Pit the world at large against the Army in this sim (altho it should be anonymous, no one should no who's real Army who's a gamer). Of course, there's always the concern that someone else will take to heart the lessons being learned. But with the Army actually in control of the system, I would hope the benefits would outweigh the risks.

    1. Re:Make it a true MMO by poopie · · Score: 1

      then, you'd just have people killing rabbits for food, and trading up to get items to sell on ebay, or you'd have people hiding behind every possible object waiting to shoot someone who walks by.

      Oh, and there would be lots of people just running around and jumping and shooting everything that moves.

      Fun!

  51. Obligatory Slashbot Comment by EmCeeHawking · · Score: 1

    Oh great, just more technology that will help the imperialist American military kill more innocent civilians.

  52. World War II Online by Mittermeyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    World War II Online already has an immersive world oriented towards shooting people with ballistics/armor resolution, interaction between ground sea and air units, and 3000+ people in a single game world (1940 NW Europe, the largest game world in existence). Would have been nice to see some of that $6 million thrown towards a working model.

    Likely they are going to get better eye candy (which is important for immersion in infantry battles) but the vehicles are not going to be right without serious serious work. And forget about interacting with fast moving choppers and jets.

    --
    ________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
    1. Re:World War II Online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they should use Operation Flashpoint...

  53. Re:Violence because of video games ? nahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please don't wet your panties
    The movies are making our kids violent! Go after hollywood!!!

  54. army vs. us? by Beowulf_Boy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wouldn't it be a cool idea,
    as well as good practice for the troops,
    if they could play against the average joe?

    Perhaps have weekly games, 1 spawn per a game,
    to prevent dumbasses from just going rambo,
    in which the troops, using their machines, could play against anyone in the US with the proper program and computer setup.

    It'd keep them on their toes, thats for sure.
    It'd similate a half-hazard army, such as guerilla armys, or mobs. Plus, I'd love to be able to whip out my sniper rifle and pick off a few of them

  55. Re:Violence because of video games ? nahh by Narphorium · · Score: 1
    Are you trying to say that the army developed this game to encourage thier soldiers to be more violent by making them play violent video games? I think thats quite a stretch.

    Really, I think they have much easier ways of weeding out the pacifists (if there are any?).

    In my opinion, these games act mostly as marketing tools to show how "fun" it is to be a soldier. In the end, one 'leet soldier will still have no trouble taking out 10 'leet gamers trained on these games.

    (If the parent was meant to be sarcastic I apologize, at the time of my response it is modded Insightful)

  56. check out these billion $ transfers he made... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    http://www.themedianews.com/DAGGER/Head_Lines/Link %20Extras/coutts_bank_london_martwell.htm

    more goodies on http://www.cloakanddagger.ca/

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  57. For realism by addie · · Score: 4, Funny

    The "good guys" should get outfit with alienware machines while the enemies play on Russian-refurbished Apple II's.

    1. Re:For realism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I *live* in a Russian refurbished Apple II you insensitve clod!!!

  58. I doubt it'd be like that. by Razzak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm willing to bet if you do something stupid and die in the simulator "game"... you're gonna be pulled out, get your instructor to yell at you until your ears bleed, and then be doing pushups and "helped" pushups until you die.

    For those of you that don't know what I'm talking about, one form of "training" has you do pushups til you can't no more, then do pushups with someone helping you up with a towel around your toso.

    If you really think they'll have a "click to respawn" feature either a) you're an idiot... or b) you're right and the army is dumber than I thought.. and I'm an idiot too.

    1. Re:I doubt it'd be like that. by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Plus, they could always work out some system that, for example, sends current through a pair of electrodes whenever you die. Zap! Just a little negative reinforcement...

  59. Re:Violence because of video games ? nahh by kwpulliam · · Score: 3, Informative

    I believe that it's closer to "Teamwork and Situational Awareness Though Video Games" Seriously, The army is already pretty darn good at training citizens into soldiers. Your premise is wrong because you presume that violence is the desired end result, when in reality, the desired end result is soldier safety combined with an end to hostilities.

  60. Re:Yeah, but... by MachDelta · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you saw a platoon of lanky, pale, acne ridden zombie-creatures with calculators and rifles, backed up by a division of equally pale, huge amorphous blobs sporting over-stretched tux shirts and heavy weaponry, bearing down on you and screetching "OMFG U R LIEK GONNA B SO PWNED BITCHIZ!!!".... wouldn't you be terrified out of your mind?

    I know I would.

  61. Concerning The Origin of Tentacle Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it was the frustration of salarymen who suddenly had to confront the horror of equal rights.

    I don't care why it exist, only that it exists.

  62. Re:Yeah, but... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, especially if they were on my side.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  63. Re:MS puts another tick their bedpost... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I play There, and Firebird is my default browser. Not all that difficult to make a shortcut that opens IE for the game.

    Can't say much about the latest IE thing, it worked fine with what I had installed. If your IE is that old, you must be a thrill-seeker..

  64. why there? by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 1

    There, Inc. seems like a very strange choice to develop a fighting simulation - all you do in their existing game is dance and buy clothes...

    --
    For great justice.
  65. Why didn't they just start with Counterstrike... by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...instead of blowing $32 million to develop a proprietary version?

    No wonder we're running a half-trillion dollar deficit...

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
  66. Re:MS puts another tick their bedpost... by Ironica · · Score: 1

    I play There, and Firebird is my default browser. Not all that difficult to make a shortcut that opens IE for the game.

    Well, like I said (though not so clearly), the installation FAILED because I didn't have IE as my default browser and wouldn't change that setting. Perhaps you changed it for the purposes of installation and then changed it back, or they fixed this and didn't bother to tell me (I emailed them politely informing them that I would be unable to participate in the beta until they fixed this problem, and that I would appreciate a notification if/when they did get it resolved... they responded with a polite "not gonna happen").

    --
    Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
  67. This won't last long by Boatman · · Score: 2, Funny

    This'll last about as long as it takes for the 82nd Airborne to get their butts kicked by a bunch of 12 year olds. Maybe that's why they're calling it Asymmetric Warfare...

    --
    --Just the place for a snark!
    1. Re:This won't last long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has a seperate service for civilians. Unless they're letting 12 year olds into the military these days, it's not going to happen.

  68. Re:Why didn't they just start with Counterstrike.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were using a modified version of DOOM years ago for this... maybe they just need to go to a new level.

    or maybe the doom 3 license is like... a million?

  69. Obligatory Harsh Realm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I've been sent here on order to take out Santiago..."

  70. Re:Why didn't they just start with Counterstrike.. by Lando+Griffin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe they don't want the Army to consist of TKers, AWP campers, and flashbang spammers. Also, 90% of the soldiers would only be able to work in a combat zone laid out exactly like the de_dust map.

  71. Re:So all my FPS playing make me military material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe you are trying to rationalize. You already have the military experience from your time in the military, I'd think that was a lot more useful than any time playing FPS games.

  72. Layoffs There? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    F*cked Company is reporting 40% layoffs happening at there.com.

  73. Re:MS puts another tick their bedpost... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never saw that problem.

    I did see a problem when installing on my laptop, because it didn't like my video adapter. Solution: hold down shift key while starting the program, to skip the compatibility step. Gotta love those undocumented, non-standard solutions...

  74. layoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to f*edcompany.com, There Inc. laid off 40% of their workers last week, including their head of engineering.

    I guess when you can't make a product that consumers want, try getting a military contract!

  75. Re:Why didn't they just start with Counterstrike.. by caferace · · Score: 2, Informative
    RTFA again. I believe $32M is what There spent to develop their system. The article says the gummint is paying $6M on dev, and this article says the gummint contract with There was for $3.5M.

    A bit of disparity, to be sure. I still want a gold toilet seat.

  76. Only a matter of time before robots take the job by planckscale · · Score: 1
    Sure we can all control our fps counterparts in virtual reality but how long until we're controlling weather-proof robots in real life? How hard is the transition? Sony now has a human robot that can dance the fricken merangue, so how long until that sucker is squeazing the trigger of a machine gun? Who cares if there's a second of lag time when you have a million auto-loading case-less 500 shotgun weilding newbs at home 'keeping the peace' round-the-clock? Torrential downpoars? Doesn't matter. Swealtering heat? No worries. Rat and mosquito infested lagoons? My virtual player has no problem handling these problems as well as easy to fly planes, boats, tanks, missles, and any other coded interface. I'm rambling now but I hope I never see the day I face a robot as it's scanning my iris and pupils during an interrogation of whether I love it's creator or not.

    --
    Namaste
  77. Retreating vs Surrendering by glrotate · · Score: 1

    Make sure you know the difference.

  78. Accept defeat before the battle begins. by glrotate · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Let me guess, you're french?

  79. Re:MS puts another tick their bedpost... by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


    The funny part is, their demos are available exclusively in Apple's QuickTime, but their client isn't Mac compatible. Heh.

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  80. Re:Violence because of video games ? nahh by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

    Your premise is wrong because you presume that violence is the desired end result, when in reality, the desired end result is soldier safety combined with an end to hostilities.

    Reminds me of Starship Troopers (the book, not the horribly inaccurate movie, horribly inaccurate even by Hollywood's loose standards)

    Early in the book, Rico makes a point that he and his teammates are there to provide violence. His commanders decide something needs to be done, to apply violence in a certain way, and it is his job to do it.

    Then he goes on about how modern war is not about killing your enemy; its about convincing him that you're right. Violence therefore is not a means to kill; in his kind of war, killing is the opposite of what you want. Your enemy has to be alive to be able to agree with you. He's philosophizing about this because he's on a mission on a planet of almost allies that humanity wants to be more firmly on their side. And therefore his mission is to avoid killing, but to decimate the infrastructure wherever possible.

    And then Rico says (paraphrasing), "I've never been asked to kill all the left-handed red heads in a certain area, but if someone decided it needed to be done, me and my men could do it."

    Maybe that's what this is about? After you've trained a soldier, after he has reached the point where physical exertion will never tire him again, after he has learned how to shoot as well as can be expected, operate the 200 or so different pieces of equipment he will run into as a soldier - operate them in the dark while sleeping nonetheless, and given him enough field training to ensure he can survive in a warzone...

    Maybe the next stage is to teach that soldier how to direct all this ability. The soldier has learned how to be violent. Maybe accelerated massively multi-user virtual reality simulations can provide the training necessary to control that violence, to channel it exactly where needed in exactly the amounts needed.

    Think about it; the key to learning any skill is practice and repetition. War games are all fine and good, but they take time to setup. They take time to play. They take time to get to and from. How long does it take for one war game? hours? days?

    What if you could run the soldier through the war game in only the time it takes for him to do his job? What if you could continually run him through it again and again, putting him in different situations each time, grading him, providing feedback? How many tactical situations could you put him through in the same time as the previous war game?

    --
    I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  81. I'm For It by Simonetta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We, the USA, and the rest of the world spend far too much money on military affairs. Every year it just gets worse.

    The purpose of the military is to protect the local country from invasion from other countries and their armies.

    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.

    They don't need a military any more!! Yet they spend tons of their money on this unnecessary endeavor. It is really warping their minds and is making both their neighbors and the rest of the civilized world uncomfortable.

    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.

    But since they have so much powerful weaponry, no one wants to just take them aside for a little chat and suggest that they should just 'chill' because they don't have any real enemies that are dangerous enough for them to require this kind of behavior.

    Creating an artifical environment where the young Americans can get their 'gook-killing' urges satisified is really money well spent, as long as the simulation is so good that they want to spend more time in it than in the real world.

    Because, frankly, in this increasingly networked world of global corporations, having lots of young trigger-happy running amok with no idea of what they're doing, or who they're doing it to, or why they're doing it ... is simply bad for business.

    1. Re:I'm For It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This got modded as troll, but is probably the most insightful message on this subject. Tisk tisk...

    2. Re:I'm For It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the fact that America doesn't really have any powerful enemies any more can't possibly be because they have the most powerful military in the world. No, it must be because Aries decided that since no one has worshiped him for well over a millenia he should stop causing all that darn bloodshed.

      Insightful my ass.

  82. What these kinds of simulations teach by servognome · · Score: 1


    MMO type games are very powerful tools in promoting cooperative operations and excution of tactics. Just look at a high level Everquest raid - 20-40 people all with a specific job, and if somebody does not execute their job perfectly everybody fails. Or look at a really good Counterstrike team, all moving, aiming, and following orders with precision. These people are thousands of miles apart working in sync following commands and doing their specific task to within a few seconds.
    Perfect execution as a team and following orders are key to military success and these type of games are excellent at promoting these things.

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  83. Developed by There? by sahonen · · Score: 1

    So they'll spend most of their time buying the latest fashions in military fatigues and mini-games like playing with hover-tanks?

    --
    Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
  84. yeah... by Hangin10 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Anyone here seen the History Channel?

    We've had several centuries to figure war
    out, but it seems people in this country (USA)
    don't seem to get it. We constantly hear about
    1 (ONE!) soldier getting killed and everyone is
    so sad about it. I'd hate to be around to see
    when the US finally faces an actual war (fully
    declared by Congress, civil rights suspended, etc).
    If we face an actual conflict/war with a large,
    highly organized force, I only hope the top guys
    will figure things out quick enough that we don't
    end up with the fight on our own turf. We would
    end up with much more than this 200 we keep
    hearing about for Iraq.

    Anyway, with this simulator, I'm interesting in
    what kind of AI is being used. Different countries
    have different fighting styles. The Japanese will
    just keep coming until the last man/woman/child/
    house pet has run out of ammo and killed he/she/it's self. The Germans will be highly organized
    and efficient. Mexicans will try to either surround you or divide-and-conquer. Is this sort
    of thing being taken into account?

    Either way, as they say "The sun never sets on
    the American Empire.". I'd bet Bush can fit the
    order to take over the planet into 2 sentences.

    Now, people, think. The typical American doesn't
    even know that we AREN'T a democracy, we are a
    Republic. Heck 1/2 of Americans don't know the
    time period of their own Civil War. Americans
    in general don't think a whole lot, and we'll
    be in deep ... stuff if we ever have anything
    serious happen.

    DON'T BE LEMMINGS, VOTE FAR RIGHT! THE PEOPLE
    ARE SUPPOSED TO RULE!

    If this post gets modded down, I know then that /. isn't the place for people who understand
    History and when it's about to be repeated (sad
    for us then, that it's full of mistakes...)

    Just a thought...

    1. Re:yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We constantly hear about 1 (ONE!) soldier getting killed and everyone is so sad about it.

      Well, I'm sure you'd rather enjoy having your spouse or parent killed in a war to take out a dictator, albeit an evil one, just to get his 10 year old ineffective Weapons of Little and Inconsequential Destruction, but I'm sure most people with any sense of love and/or compassion wouldn't be as pleased.

      I'd hate to be around to see when the US finally faces an actual war (fully declared by Congress, civil rights suspended, etc).

      And uh, civil rights are only suspended in a real war? Well, what's going on now? You don't even need a threat of a war for that now do you?

      The Japanese will just keep coming until the last man/woman/child/ house pet has run out of ammo and killed he/she/it's self. The Germans will be highly organized and efficient. Mexicans will try to either surround you or divide-and-conquer.

      I don't think I need to say anything.

      The typical American doesn't even know that we AREN'T a democracy, we are a Republic.

      About the form of government the U.S. is, it's technically a federal democratic republic. Yes, one government can be all of those things, but, of course you weren't thinking.

      Americans in general don't think a whole lot, and we'll be in deep ... stuff if we ever have anything serious happen.

      I love the broad generalizations about Americans too! I get annoyed with people who don't really know about America and Americans saying things that aren't necessarily true, like, "All Americans ' want to do is conquer Iraq for it's oil", or, "Americans are always messing up the world", but you, saying Americans in general don't think, is very foolish.

      I'd like to recall for you several serious things happening to us in the past 100 years:

      WW1 (Important)

      Prohibition (stupid stupid stupid, but well meaning)

      Depression (bad bad bad)

      WW2 (Probably the most important thing for America)

      Korea (not as big as Vietnam)

      Vietnam (Very serious politically)

      Gulf War (small but important)

      Wars in the Balkans (small)

      9/11 (Aiyiyiyiyi talk about a sad sad mess)

      Gulf War Part II The Ruining of Good Will Towards All

      Of course during this time, Americans thought about many things, like job security and the economy, all except Bush, but he's a drunk with a keg (or should I say crackhead?).

      DON'T BE LEMMINGS, VOTE FAR RIGHT! THE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO RULE!

      The lemmings bit is laughable. If any party is full of lemmings, besides the odd cult ones, it's the right. C'mon, it's the "popular" thing to be now. Follow the crowd towards salvation by Bush with God and his tax cuts! For those who aren't American (so you might not have seen this), or are blinded by conservative lunacy, Bush is a tad out there with religion. It's perfectly fine and dandy for him, but saying, "May God bless the Iraqis", is very stupid!

      Just a note to non-Americans, America is a pretty nice place most of the time, and we generally don't have so many stupid people in office. We may do some stupid things now and in the future, but please give us a chance reputation wise, without proclaiming us to be evil with one wrong step. Hopefully with a new President, Republican or Democrat, Green party, Socialist, Communist, Labor.... we'll do better for the world than empty promises. So please, don't post some anti-American thing because of one(maybe even several) stupid mistake(s) made by a stupid man with his stupid friends and his stupid disregard for ethics and morals or decency.

      If this post gets modded down, I know then that /. isn't the place for people who understand History and when it's about to be repeated (sad for us then, that it's full of mistakes...)

      In regards to your last sentence, Wow! You really lack a funda

    2. Re:yeah... by Hangin10 · · Score: 1

      First, you didn't seem to realize that I AM AN AMERICAN (I live outside Chicago, IL).

      "Well, I'm sure you'd rather enjoy having your spouse or parent killed"

      Of course not, but (maybe it's been slow news lately), things could be far, far worse, and many people don't seem to get that.

      "And uh, civil rights are only suspended in a real war?"

      Have civil rights been suspended by Congress? No.

      "I don't think I need to say anything."

      I was just highlighting the major strategical
      strategies (to modify a word with its own adjective). I probably went too general there
      and sounded a little racist (as pointed out by
      a good friend).

      " it's technically a federal democratic republic."

      Of course, but being on /., we know these things,
      the typical high school student (my peers, don't).

      " aren't necessarily true, like, "All Americans ' want to do is conquer Iraq for it's oil", or, "Americans are always messing up the world""

      Did I say either of those? No. There were some
      important reasons to remove Former President Hussein from his post (to put it lightly). But there were also some not-so-good ones.

      "I'd like to recall for you several serious things happening to us in the past 100 years:"

      Strangely, you seem to have made my point with that list. I have nothing to add there.

      "The lemmings bit is laughable"

      Just from what I see around me where I live...

      "It's perfectly fine and dandy for him, but saying, "May God bless the Iraqis", is very stupid!"

      I agree.

      "some anti-American thing because of one(maybe even several) stupid mistake(s) made by a stupid man"

      hmm... wasn't intended as anti-American (more like anti-no-thought, as I am American).

      "It's almost like you forgot WW2 ever happened!"

      The comment about the Japanese was based on their WW2 determination as a people to win at all costs.
      The rest of the time, I didn't mention it, mainly
      because we (Americans) didn't make many mistakes.
      One of the major ones being that we chose to ignore and even told the French Resistance to stop feeding up intel on the Holocaust due to no particular Allied country wanting an influx of Jewish refugees. It's pity we didn't join the fight sooner, we could have possibly saved many
      lives.

      " calling everyone that was not a radical republican a lemming"

      I am NOT a radical republican. And the big caps
      thing was just a random phrase anyway :).

      " Just a thought...

      Where?"

      Good one.

      Thank you for a well-thoughtout post that obviously took a great deal of time to format
      so nicely. :).

      It's late for me, so I didn't make my reply
      look as good as yours, but I hope it clears up any misunderstandings (not that there were any, you sort of made my point(s)).

      cout "Thanks" endl;
      cout "Bye" endl;

    3. Re:yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did realize you were an American, it was pretty obvious. Anyway, civil rights have been somewhat suspended, not as seriously as the suspension of habeus corpus in the civil war, but what about the PATRIOT act?

      I was just highlighting the major strategical
      strategies (to modify a word with its own adjective). I probably went too general there
      and sounded a little racist (as pointed out by
      a good friend).


      Cool, just pointing it out. It does sound pretty racist now, although 60 years ago the first two would have been pretty true.

      Of course, but being on /., we know these things,
      the typical high school student (my peers, don't).


      Eh, don't misunderestimate them( ;-) ). OK, you're right they don't know it, but they don't make up half of the American pop.

      " aren't necessarily true, like, "All Americans ' want to do is conquer Iraq for it's oil", or, "Americans are always messing up the world""

      Did I say either of those? No. There were some
      important reasons to remove Former President Hussein from his post (to put it lightly). But there were also some not-so-good ones.


      I didn't say you said these things, sorry if it seemed that way. I was saying that people say some stupid things about Americans in general that are inaccurate.

      Look, it seems like a little bit of a misunderstanding. Yeah, it was late at night when I did that too! Sorry if I came off as harsh, most of the insulting stuff I wrote was against non-Americans stating stupid generalizations about Americans, when it's really Bush and co. Eh, about the lemmings, you said vote far right, that's why I said radical republican, and the point with the list was that you had said something like ,"imagine what would have happened if something serious happened", and then showing how we managed. Well, whatever, see ya P.S., I'm gonna be lazy and not make this look good.

  85. according to the other article... sort of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wouldn't make you a great soldier, but you could play the terrorists and try to take out the soldiers.

  86. The end of this path should be familiar to us all by paiute · · Score: 2, Informative

    "A Taste of Armageddon" is one of classic Trek's occasional, obvious metaphors for the absurdity of the then-cold war between East and West. Gene Lyons stars as a Federation ambassador named Fox, who boards the Enterprise to reach the planet Eminiar VII, where he hopes to negotiate a peace treaty with the inhabitants. Instead the crew of the Enterprise gets caught in the middle of an interplanetary war between Eminiar and neighboring planet Vendikar. The twist is that the war is being fought on computers, and compliant residents of those "destroyed" areas obediently report to disintegration chambers, where their "virtual" death is made literal. When the Enterprise is "hit" in one of these simulations, both the warlords of Eminiar VII and Ambassador Fox fully expect Capt. Kirk and crew to report to the disintegration center. The feisty Kirk has other plans, of course. And while the madness of this controlled Armageddon makes a suitably surreal satire of the arms race in the 1960s, the story also evoked the endless, daily reports of body counts during the Vietnam War, with no resolution in sight. Aside from its parable aspect, however, the episode gave Kirk one of his earliest and most compelling scenes of Kirkian preachiness in a bold monologue about peace, reportedly written and rewritten numerous times by series producer and indispensable creative hand Gene L. Coon. --Tom Keogh

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  87. Re:Why didn't they just start with Counterstrike.. by krymsin01 · · Score: 1
    I remember, way back when, when they used Army Doom. Quoth a 2001 wired article:
    In 1994, the Marines broke new ground by employing a modified version of the bloody Doom PC game, supposedly to teach teamwork skills.
    --
    stuff
  88. why this won't work... by gobblez · · Score: 0

    this isn't going to help. have you ever actually tried running through the woods with a ruck, kevlar, and lce on, firing rounds from an m-16 or saw? i have. even if you can max your pt test, you're dead tired after 5 minutes of 3-5 second rushes, low crawls, and trying to evade enemy fire, mortar sims, keep your squad organized, etc. we do this all the time with miles gear, the army's 15 year old version of lazer tag which is like 2% accurate. the best way to train is to just do the real thing, building up your mind and body for the task at hand. thats why iraq rotations are 1 year instead of 6 months like OEF, half the newbie clusterfucks.

  89. Why YOU Live in THE MATRIX ! by ertpihreth · · Score: 0

    MATRIX THEORY !

    i have submitted this as a story. WE will see how DENSE the editors are. LET THE ENERGY FLOW!

  90. kekekeke USMC rush ^_^ by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
    It could be worse - the end of the Iraq occupation could be delayed indefinitely because the Marines can't leave without their buddy Superfly.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  91. Too late. by Inoshiro · · Score: 1

    "Or what happens if it desensitizes soldiers to the point that their slight paranoia turns to burning down whole villages? "

    Did you ever watch the movie Platoon? That stuff already happened. The US has no moral high ground when it comes to crimes of war.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  92. I beg to differ by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    All the top modded posts on /. seem to keep saying "oh this is stupid" but I think most people are missing the point of the training.

    It's about organizing, communicating, teamwork, learning to understand the situation from the various sources (some electronic, most contradictory), and leading remotely.

    I've played WW2OL for 2+ years now, and it's a HUGE eye-opener to see how much better well-organized squads communicating constantly on teamspeak do, as compared to random lone wolfers running around with their l33t ski11z.

    America's Army (the game, not the service) is the same way.

    Nobody's saying that shooting a gun in a virtual world will train you how to shoot for real, or give you courage to stand in battle. But what it will give you is a sense of teamwork, and a familiarity with the SITUATION that might help you trust your real-life trained skills and coworkers/soldiers, and might just save your life.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:I beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about organizing, communicating, teamwork, learning to understand the situation from the various sources (some electronic, most contradictory), and leading remotely.

      Wow, you must be the one guy in the office that really enjoys those motivational seminars and compulsory team-building camping trips.

  93. Retardation is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, we were only a part in the defeat of Hitler, which did not occur within the last fifty years. Second we did NOTHING to Stalin. He lived out his life as dictator of Russia. Third we DID have a choice whether to engage on both occasions. We won nothing, yet people are free? Why is that? Because we have enough economic strength to deter any war against us.

    1. Re:Retardation is bad by Dutchy+Wutchy · · Score: 1

      Yes. Quite so. Mod Parent Up. UP. UP.

  94. Re:MS puts another tick their bedpost... by broller · · Score: 1

    There uses some open source code, and even released their changes like good GPL users. From what I've heard, the servers are all run on some form of linux, and a bunch of the development of the product is as well.

    Linux versions and Mac versions of the client are planned, but There is still a very young product with a ton of features ahead of those clients on the todo list. They have a mailing list for both, so sign up and come back when\if they meet your needs.

    Here's the kicker though: You aren't in their target market. There's target market is women and men who like to chat socially online. They've recently partnered with iVilliage to bring more women to There. They will openly tell you that FPS gamers and developers are certainly welcome, but not who they're trying to attract.

    There is a business, and until Linux\Mac\Non-IE-based-Windows has even 10% of the market share of There's target customers, don't expect them to make this a priority.

  95. Paintball psychology by CrazyJim0 · · Score: 1

    IN real combat, you jump off cliffs to avoid enemy fire.

    In paintball, you don't dive in thorn bushes to avoid enemy fire, unless you're psychotic or really into it.

  96. Re:Why didn't they just start with Counterstrike.. by CrowScape · · Score: 1

    The US Air Force also uses a modified version of Starcraft for simulation. Each side has three "players"; one defense, one offense, and another who coordinates them. An AF budy of mine tried to get a copy for a LAN party, but unfortunately the AF didn't like the possibility that their "game" would find its way into public distribution. Yes, our fly boys know how to handle a Zerg rush.

    --
    common sense: noun
    What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
  97. Your tax dollars at play by cmacb · · Score: 1

    Based on what I've seen of this program it's going to result in a bunch of soldiers who obsess about clothing, fabrics, and their hair style.

    Of course if you could get the worlds terrorists to start using online games instead of actually exploding their body parts all over the place it might be a handy thing.

    I'm afraid this is tax money down the drain, helped along by someone with the right contacts. We'll see.

  98. Re:Don't forget... by xtrucial · · Score: 0, Troll

    George Bush Sr.'s cum is on teh spoke!!11!!exclamation point!!!one!!111!

  99. Re:MS puts another tick their bedpost... by mandalayx · · Score: 1

    the irony from there.com:

    There uses and supports open source software for development, tools, and office systems. We attempt (whenever possible) to share our modifications with the open source community. Because we have just adopted our open source policy, we don't have much source code available yet. Anything released by There and not already covered by a license will be covered by the BSD license.

    There is currently using the GNU Malloc library, which is covered by the LGPL license. Our source code for this is here: GnuMallocSystem.zip

    Please check this page regularly for updates and more information about There's ongoing commitment to open source.

  100. Nice idea, but... by Jaeph · · Score: 1

    ...in the real world people fear dying, and that fear makes all the difference. Not the fear of losing, not a sense of caution, but real, gut-wrenching fear.

    The simulators may help them practice tactics more easily, but they will never give them the taste of fear they're going to feel on the battlefield, so the experience won't be anything like the battlefield.

    Fear rules.

    -Jeff

    --
    Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
  101. Re:So all my FPS playing make me military material by Felinoid · · Score: 1

    First Person Shooters are good for plotting out stratagy.
    After all in a first person shooter your stratagy is what will make or break you.

    Of course some jerk out there is telling the world first person shooters desensitise people to violence. I'll lay odds he thinks all the hateful stares he get's from gammers are the result of FPS and not the BS he sells in his book.

    Of course now he'll make a second book clamming massive multiplayer online games have the same impact.

    --
    I don't actually exist.
  102. History revisionism ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    First YOu HELPED defeat an army (German one) but you did nto defeat comunism. It felt apart 50+ years after WW2 due to economical reason and mostly inter reason. nothing to do with the US.

    THEN AGAIN let us see how the US did against NON-conventional warfare. That is guerilla like. Like Vietnam. Or should I remind you how a superior warfare army like Russia did against the Afghan and their guerilla warfare ? Or german army against Partisan in various country ?

    Frankly I am wondering about moderation here. Because your post is modded Insightful +5 whereas it should be -5 overrated or -5 uninformational.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:History revisionism ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone in the US is as ignorant as that guy.. Apparently some of the moderators are, though.

      Thanks for correcting misinformation, you should get modded up for that.

    2. Re:History revisionism ? by vkg · · Score: 1

      Ok, let's flesh this out a bit.

      Hitler first: the USA kept Britain afloat, and defeated the Japanese. Had we not entered the war (even economically) until much later, or not at all, Britain would have fallen fairly rapidly, Hitler would have been free to focus on Russia, and probably defeated them.

      Reasonable reading of history? I think so.

      Now the USSR. They didn't just "fall apart" - if the USA had not participated in the arms race, had not contained them in Europe so they couldn't simply have rolled into Berlin at the end of WW2, say, or perhaps just driven through the rest of Europe any time it pleased them, they could have almost certainly survived economically and politically.

      But the perpetual US pressure, the "Cold War", placed them in a position where they could not expand their territory to survive and where vital resources were being bled off into the miltary, eventually destroying their economy.

      In both cases: no action from the USA, and a much, much worse world results.

      Now, our relationship with China is a more subtle version of our relationship with the USSR, but fundamentally we're out to destroy them as a long-term threat to our welfare. This time, the tool of choice is capitalism and economic interdependence.

      Odds are it'll work there too.

      The USA has actually been the bulwark against which these tides crashed.

    3. Re:History revisionism ? by EinarH · · Score: 1
      Now, our relationship with China is a more subtle version of our relationship with the USSR, but fundamentally we're out to destroy them as a long-term threat to our welfare. This time, the tool of choice is capitalism and economic interdependence.

      Odds are it'll work there too.

      I'm not so sure about it. See my reply to one of your post here
      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

  103. MMOG? by axxackall · · Score: 1

    What is MMOG?

    --

    Less is more !
    1. Re:MMOG? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Massive Multi-Player Online Game.

  104. OOOOld news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many armies including the us one have used games to train (even quake) their soldiers.

    Another day without news on slashdot ?

  105. Re:The end of this path should be familiar to us a by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you can be able to answer this question...

    In Episode 25, where the crew of the Enterprise gets attacked by these spores and
    start acting real weird, like hippies and stuff... The part where Kirk leaves his quarters for the last time and opens his safe...
    What was the combination?

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  106. and in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Orson Scott Card should see a massive boost in interest from the film industry. Enders Game, ironically or not, now fits into a potential real-world 'doomsday' scenerio with all of the trimmings. Truly Bizarre.

  107. I remember when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. the media was hung-up on the Columbine thing..

    One of the big things that they focused on was that the guys played FPS shooters.

    There was one activist from the military, who took the statistics from the massacre (number of shots fired vs hits, on which part of the body, etc.) and claimed that they were better than most military people, and this expertise had to have come from the large number of hours they spent playing Quake.

    He then made the statement "these games should be banned, because they provide military quality weapons training."

    So at least one person agrees with you :o)

    1. Re:I remember when... by jpop32 · · Score: 1

      There was one activist from the military, who took the statistics from the massacre (number of shots fired vs hits, on which part of the body, etc.) and claimed that they were better than most military people, and this expertise had to have come from the large number of hours they spent playing Quake.

      I beileve this to be true. I'm pretty sure that every experienced FPS could be an very efficient killer, especially without anyone firing back (since most players obviously rely on respawn), like in an average public setting. But, this can happen only if said gamer could click a switch in their head and simply not care about taking human life, and furthermore, actively plan and prepare for it.

      Which is, thankfully, hardly possible in a vast majority of population. So I think it's crazy to try to ban FPS games, maybe that energy would be better spent in trying to make real, actual weapons unavailable to that minority that 'flicked the switch'.

      Ok, I'm off to shoot some people. People I know will respawn in 14 seconds tops. /me fires up DayOfDefeat...

  108. Ph33r the new recruits by Kgreene · · Score: 1

    Recruit #1: "What are you doing?"
    Recruit #2: "Spawn camping."
    Recruit #1: "You do know the enemy just doesnt materialize out of thin air?"
    Recruit #2: "Your just trying to whore my kill."
    Recruit #1: "What - "
    Recruit #2: "Shhh - I'm about to ding."

  109. Re:So all my FPS playing make me military material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.

  110. why not just paintball? by Ronald-Spears · · Score: 1

    you can easily outfit a regular mp5 or m-16 to shoot a paintball projectile and its almost exactly the same thing. It hurts a little but so what thats just an insentive not to get hit! with paintball you at least get some damn excersise! hell thats how swat tems train.

  111. If your balls are getting bigger... by jefftp · · Score: 1

    Bigger balls aren't really anything you want to strive for... it's likely a sign of mental retardation:

    http://www.midweeknews.com/health/articles/11120 3- fragile_x.html

    The only dick swinging going on at Slashdot is to the people checking out the match.com banner ads.

  112. Real life addtions by Ardillo · · Score: 1

    Hmmm. Maybe they can add a odor module that smells like cordite and pissed pants. Or a training add that adds a 60 lb pack and adjusted movement modifiers while you are sitting there playing.

    --
    Honor belongs to those who dare, not to the critic who sits by and stares
  113. Real military not as good in paintball? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    If anything our training had us often seeking cover when just plain concealment would have done just as well and still allowed us a lane of fire.

    This was the part he was talking about. When you loose the 'war training' aspect of the 'game', tactics that work in the game that would get you slaughtered in a real fight come into existance. You were sacrificing opportunities for firing lines where the cover was adequate for paintballs, but not for assault weapons. You still won because the other's had no idea about real tactics. They probably didn't prepare like you guys did (It's your life vs their fun).

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  114. Metal Gear Solid 2:Sons of Liberty by blue.26 · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of Sons of Liberty and what Snake said about the diminished sense of reality with VR Training:

    RAIDEN: I was a part of the Army's Force XXI trials...
    PLISKEN: Force XXI? That's about tactical IT deployment, right?
    PLISKEN: Any field experience?
    RAIDEN: No -- not really.
    PLISKEN: So this is your first.
    RAIDEN: I've had extensive training --
    PLISKEN: the kind that's indistinguishable from the real thing.
    PLISKEN: Like what?
    RAIDEN: Sneaking mission 60,
    RAIDEN: Weapons 80,
    PLISKEN: VR, huh.
    RAIDEN: But realistic in every way.
    PLISKEN: A virtual grunt of the digital age. That's just great.
    RAIDEN: That's far more effective than live exercises.
    PLISKEN: You don't get injured in VR, do you?
    PLISKEN: Every year, a few soldiers die in field exercises.
    RAIDEN: There's pain sensation in VR, and even a sense of reality and
    urgency.
    PLISKEN: The only difference is that it isn't actually happening.
    PLISKEN: That's the way they want you to think,
    PLISKEN: to remove you from the fear that goes with battle situations.
    PLISKEN: War as a video game --
    PLISKEN: what better way to raise the ultimate soldier?

    RAIDEN: Snake, have you ever -- enjoyed killing someone?
    RAIDEN:I'm not sure. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between
    reality and a game...
    SNAKE: Diminished sense of reality, huh? VR training will do that.

    Makes me wonder if it's a good idea...
    The whole video-game-as-training.
    But maybe I've been playing too much Metal Gear Solid.

  115. Re:MS puts another tick their bedpost... by Ironica · · Score: 1

    Here's the kicker though: You aren't in their target market. There's target market is women and men who like to chat socially online. They've recently partnered with iVilliage to bring more women to There. They will openly tell you that FPS gamers and developers are certainly welcome, but not who they're trying to attract.

    Oh, how I love assumptions...

    1) I'm female
    2) I'm NOT an FPS player, at all... my ex-husband, after about a year of begging, got me to try Half-Life for half an hour, after which I nearly threw up from Quake-sickness
    3) I have played several MMOGs and play on other web-based "social" gaming sites
    4) I'm not even employed in the IT industry (anymore)

    So I'm EXACTLY their target market, apparently.

    --
    Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
  116. Proper training makes all the difference by Gewis · · Score: 1

    Cover, squad-based movement tactics, proper marksmanship including body position, breath control, trigger squeeze, and proper aim all make an enormous difference on the battlefield. Take your spray-and-pray approach up against a US Army Infantry Squad in a paintball tournament, and you'll see some difference. Do it with accurate weaponry (which paintball, unfortunately, is not) and you'll get your hind end completely handed to you. FPS is fun and all, and it definitely can help you work on battlefield awareness, proper aim, and team-based tactics, but don't think it's just spraying projectiles.

    Me, I just work in a special ops unit doing intelligence. Not quite so 'glamorous,' but everybody in the Army is capable of some infantry stuff.