Slashdot Mirror
Army Discusses MMO Troop Training Sim
An anonymous reader writes "Over at GameSpot, there's an interview with Dr. Michael Macedonia of the U.S. Army about the AWE training sim, a 'massively multiplayer simulation [based on the There 'virtual world' game engine] that will be used by military personnel to train troops in urban situations before they are airlifted to a battle zone.' Macedonia says 'We built downtown Baghdad in this environment', and also says 'we call our games tactical decision aids. Our thing is not making people shoot better; it's making people think better.'" We previously featured an initial announcement of this project in January.
Battlefield confusion when the commander dies? Their own death? A commander in chief willing to sacrifice American lives for a people who would be better off left to their own devices?
I have been pwned because my
Finally... I can get rich by selling my hand crafted virtual weapons of mass destruction on ebay!
Any takers, they are rarer than the admins would lead you to believe!
The guy who invented the first machine gun did so after a friend told him, "If you want to pile up gold, invent a killing machine."
Still works.
#define struct union
How long before war game training/simulation slides into becoming real-time tactical control of the battlefield?
It's probably already technically possible, and just requires a generational change for the generals to accept it.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
"Newb" will now be an official military term.
Why worry that we now have a "new toy" to train soldiers?
Humanity has been using war games to train soldiers since the time of sparta. Then, as now, the aim was not to sharpen the fighting skills, but the thinking skills.
My feelings on the war in Baghdad aside, I feel happier that the soldiers being sent into the streets of baghdad will feel less nervous, and therefore less trigger happy
A well trained Army is not a more blood-thirsty army, as a matter of fact, the opposite is porbably true.
Johns: Well, how does it look now? Riddick: Looks clear.
When did it become more expensive to outift our troops with the testing gear they use then to create virtual worlds?? If a movie can put together insane sets that look like 1950's new york, just for example, why can't the US Army put up a mock up of Babhdad and let the grunts try it out for REAL. With REAL guns firing paint rounds, REAL backpacks on loaded with REAL survival supplies, and the REAL screams of your men around you. Not a glorified video game. I don't want this to be labelled troll, but it almost seems like by giving them such shit training they are sending the soldiers to die, cause there is no way possible that "virtual" training is anywhere near as helpful to a green soldier as "real" training. If it was the ARMY would have a clue and be heavily recruiting FPS clans around the world....
Where do I sign up for beta?
Will this also be available to the general public (possibly in a dumbed down version)?
If so, will "terrorists" be able to learn from this as well, to see how the US soldier gets trained?
Personally, I'm interested, could be a fun game, IMHO there's nothing wrong with virtual killing (in RL I'm kind of a pacifist)
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Boy are they going to be pissed when they discover that god mode doesn't work in the real world.
Beep beep.
'we call our games tactical decision aids. Our thing is not making people shoot better; it's making people think better'
... if only they could build a game to help the leaders think better rather than shooting their mouths off!
hmmm
In any case, these games will only take the soldiers upto one point. After that, comes the most important aspect of urban warfare... the mind of the enemy. That is where the battles are won or lost. And every adversary is prone to thinking differently in a given situation!
Can't wait for the hell to break loose when someone perfects their wallhack and aimbot. "omg u cheater, you just killed the whole US army!"
Business Voyeur
Thinking soldiers ? Wonder will never cease.
Reminds me of the strange artifacts reported when using Massive IA system in rendering battles scenes for LOTR
The soldiers ran for the hills. That's what's happening when you think
This is not a rant against the military, but again orwelian newspeak. they dont want soldiers who think better, they want soldier with better reflexes (as opposed to consciousness) and who think they are in a videogame.
Definitively NOT thinking better
--- Back to the trees, back to the trees !
Probably at the closest army recruiting office ?
Why worry that we now have a "new toy" to train soldiers?
Humanity has been using war games to train soldiers since the time of sparta. Then, as now, the aim was not to sharpen the fighting skills, but the thinking skills.
My feelings on the war in Baghdad aside, I feel happier that the soldiers being sent into the streets of baghdad will feel less nervous, and therefore less trigger happy
A well trained Army is not a more blood-thirsty army, as a matter of fact, the opposite is porbably true.
Well... I strongly agree on the need for soldiers better trained to handle conflicts like the one in Iraq, but I wonder if the very American approach of using new technology for that is the best. While there is no doubt that for the war itself the US army's hi-tech approach has worked extremely well as the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns have clearly shown, when it comes to maintaining order on the ground and fighting militias it has its limits. British troops in Iraq have globally been better able to pacify the cities they are in charge of than US soldiers, and the reason behind their relative success is not more high tech, geeky new technology but on-the-ground experience in similar missions acquired in Northern Ireland and Bosnia. I can't see a simulator replacing real experience in dealing with the population; it's not something you can simulate like an air battle.
What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
The 2nd game you speak of was never supposed to be for actual training of soldiers. I think the elusive 2nd game was supposed to be a sort of RPG/advertisement where your character is enlisted and goes through basic training, with different skill sets, careers, game endings etc. To educate high-schooler about the Army. Last I heard it was scrapped when they included the training "FAQ" and "what's life in the army like?" type maps in the existing FPS game.
But I wouldn't be suprised if they used the existing work on that RPG as a base for this training sim.
How about training on the difference between Friend and foe. I'd feel happier thinking US troops had a couple of hours training showing them the equipment used by allied and enemy troops, than a frag fest, before going into combat.
Freedom has a price. With out a strong military, you cannot ensure its protection. But then again, what does a troll like you know about maintaining a world free of dictators and corruption? The dirty little secret is this. You MUST protect freedom for the better of mankind. Even...if it cost lives.
Life is not for the lazy.
Americas Army has been around a while now training soldiers of all ages in basic combat. Puts you through basic training and keeps a database on your skills. It is run by the U.S. Army and when you join, they look up your skills in the database to help direct your training. It's a totally free game developed by the Army for your training pleasure.
It scares me somewhat the the U.S. Army is spending $$$ to train 12 yr old kids how to navigate battlefields.
If you really wanted a good sim, why not just use Paintball? It's probually as close as you can get without killing each other.
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov
Sims work! With the amount of hour spend playing Medal of Honor and Call of Duty, I can say for certain that I'm tatically ready for battle in the real world. Here are some things I've learned.
1. Never..EVER stand in the middle of an open field without cover. You will get your sniped.
2. Always reload when availble...and NOT in combat.
3. Team work...use team work.
4. Stay low, and quite.
Life is not for the lazy.
As a member of the U.S. military, I find your disdain for soldiers and the sacrafices they make appalling. If you dislike what the military does, don't blame it on the kids. Blame those that make the decisions.
The beatings will continue until morale improves!
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
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!!
I hate to break it to you, but 20,000 nukes is not a deterent to some. Al-Qaida in particular comes to mind. With no real intrests to bomb, nukes have no deterent effect against them. Bombing their supporters would do some good, however dragging others into a conflict that is really a low key war is bad policy. Also, while we have theose nukes, that does not mean that we would use them. There is no need in most cases to turn an enemy into a smoking hole in the ground. Take Iraq as an example -- while the US had a great problem with Saddam, that hostility did not go to the point that we wished to kill all Iraqis. Far from it.
A tactical force will always be needed, regardless of the strategic deterrent. Even after one does nuke an area, you still need ground forces to capture the ground. Many situations such as urban fighting, airports, oil rigs, banks, and other high value targets can not be nuked. To nuke the target does much more harm than good. That perspective also does not take into account the negative PR that comes from using nukes. One nuke each on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed about 250,000 in the short term. Thats a large loss of life for a small tactical gain. Strategicly is was a great gain as the invasion of Japan was no longer needed, but relying on nukes alone would be a disaster.
There is some twisted little defect in the American culture that makes their young people actually want to go into dangerous combat situations on the other side of the world and expose themselves to discomfort, death, and dismemberment against people that they have never even heard of. No one else seriously wants to do this.
Dont be so sure about that. Al-Qaida, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades, Islamic Jihad, and others would strike at the US were it not for our tactical force. They know that any attack on United States soil would motivate the US to destroy them. Nuking these small places in Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt all have bad effects for Israel, not to mention those near ground zero. A tactical approach would be much better for all involved.
Even better than that of course is a political solution. Not everyone wants that.With no military, we have no backup. And we all know where no backups leave us.
Spc Gruhn, US Army
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.
Dude, unless you want America to start using all 20000 nuclear bombs, you'd better pray Americans continue to fund their miltary.
Little Bricklets
Freedom has a price. With out a strong military, you cannot ensure its protection
The same with tyrany.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
The piece of software that sparked this "discussion" isn't going to enhance anybody's freedom, it's all about enhancing the US Army's ability to fight and control your typical third world urban armed populace. The only reason the US Army will ever be fighting in such urban areas is for strategic control over the resources of the country involved. It's worth remembering this before you start talking about fighting for freedom. If you're bombarding people in their own neighbourhoods with Apache gunships and Abrams tanks, chances are you're not fighting for freedom.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
Perhaps building a sim where the idea is to think about what you are doing before you kill thousands of civillians would be a good idea. You Americans are so obsessed with your toys and you wonder then why some third world lunatic with a grudge plans attacks against you.
Why is this insightful?
A lot of other countries also think about what they are doing AND THEN kill MILLIONS of civilians: Soviet Russia, 1930s, Germany 1940s, China 1950s, Cambodia 1970s, Rwanda 1990s, North Korea 1990s....
It is in the face of this kind of world that America develops its military. And, it should be said, Europe has had pretty much of a free ride since at least the 60s by only spending 1-2% of GDP on THEIR OWN defence, while living "safe" in the knowledge that America spends 4-5% and was willing to use its own people's lives to defend europe during the cold war (I am a european).
And don't even think of suggesting that the UN is a better current substitute for the military: it did nothing in Rwanda in the early nineties in spite of warnings and months of notice; and it would have done nothing in Kosova if America had not stepped in.
Simulating tactical thinking in urban warfare could save civilian lives by preparing soldiers for the instant decisions and people skills necessary in moving amongst non-combatants while knowing there may be a few combatants lurking.
They don't need a military any more!!
Uh, think about this a minute. The reason no one is going to invade or occupy the USA is BECAUSE of our military, and the fact that so many of our youth voluntarily join the armed forces, for whatever reason. I agree that the purpose of the military is to protect US soil and citizen, and not to meddle in affairs of other countries, but to say that the US doesn't need a military anymore is absurd. I think recent world events are proof enough of that.
You want to join the Airforce, they get to play with the Stargate!!
America's response? Barring some miracle in the Fallujah talks, it is to do precisely what the British attempted and failed in Iraq eighty years ago -- shoot and bomb Iraqis into accepting the occupation.
From the film, it didn't seem that the US soldiers - skilled as they may be at killing efficiently - had any talent/inclination/direction to try and win over the locals. They have anyone with language skills so the patrols are limited to hand gestures to "talk" to people, and there is no cultural interaction. As a bizarre contrast, down in Basra, a couple of clowns had shipped out to provide entertainment to the local kids. US patrols are all vehicular, whereas UK troops do (at least some of) theirs on foot, paired up with local police.
End result, US troops need training in fostering local goodwill, not how to shoot (although various ironic statements about how not to shoot friendlies spring to mind).
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
Cool.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It will enhance the effectiveness of america's fighting force. By effectiveness I mean not only their ability to Kill Stuff(tm) but also their ability to not kill stuff. Maybe this will be the difference between soldiers bursting into rooms and spraying the slightest flash of movement and soldiers developing better room-clearance techniques which minimise collateral damage.
I'm not entirely sure why you think the only reason the U.S. army might fight in urban areas is "for strategic control over the resources of the country involved". Also, I'm not sure I know what you mean by that anyway??? Strategic control? Surely an element of that is minimising damage to infrastructure and essential services. Which is what they should be trying to do anyway...I believe this is in the Rules of Engagement and possibly the geneva convention as well. How is it a bad thing for them to try to do this better??
The reason this war has been so protracted is that the army is obviously not all that well equipped to fight in these situations, against a guerilla army, on their home-turf, in an urban environment. Training soldiers to "think better" is the best thing for all concerned.
A well trained army is not a problem, but it may look like a problem if your elected representatives are perceived as using them as a tool of oppression I guess.
What can really give you an advantage is knowing a 'map' if soldiers could run around in a virtual mockup of a real city they would naturally learn the map before they fight in it for real, it would be a big advantage knowing where to find cover and tactical positions, not to mention where all the power-ups are! Im guessing one of the reasons the forces in iraq arnt doing so well is that the other side (lets not get into who they are and weather they're right or wrong) knows the terrain and all the allys and connections between buildings much better than any foreign force, but how do you map out things like that?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Austin Meyer, the author of X-Plane has been working with some military and implemented some functions for them so that they could turn X-Plane into a UCAV pilot training program. The details can be read in the Beta new features announcement.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
There's also the terrible political repercussions of using nuclear weapons. I can gaurantee that any administration that uses nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack will not get re-elected.
Organizations like Al-Qaida know this, so it lessens the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrant.
If you look at India or Pakistan, though, I don't think you'll find as much local potential political fallout. However, there would be sanctions by western countries.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Totally agree with this point. Read Starship troopers (not the movie) to get a better grip on this.
The point about training your tactical force is to teach them to apply the amount of force needed the situation.
Ongoing training of this nature is what the armed forces doing when they are not on Operations. They are called Exercises.
Now for operational purposes the preparation phase becomes even more important. The more important the objective, the better the model. I know when the SAS were training to pull hostages out of Lebanon, they used floorplans and real buildings.
Doing this training virtually is just another way to do this. IMHO it would only augment existing training.
The simulation MMO isn't very realistic at all if you ask me.
There are no rocket jumps, no teleporters, no rail guns, no quad damage...you can't even capture the enemy flag for god's sake!
Doesn't sound very real to me...
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
1. We have lost more than that, last I heard, we just broke 700 coalition troops...
2 (the main point). Kill ratios don't mean shit. It is all about who can suffer the kills most effectivly. We had a kill ratio well over 10 to 1 in Vietnam, but the enemy did not mind losing half a million nearly as much as we minded losing 50,000, that is why we lost. They simply wanted victory more than we did. I think the same thing will happen in Iraq (I hope I am wrong). Also, we have already lost more troops in Iraq than we lost in the first 5 years we had troops on the ground in Vietnam... we had smaller numbers there until about '68 then the troops built up, and along with them, the casualties.
3. (About Islam) If all Islam teaches is to be a power hungry, mentally challgened idiot than i am glad I am not Muslim. I thought bush was a "Christian" (sorry couldn't resist) Seriously, there are members of just about every group who are power hungary ass holes, it has little to do with the particular group and a lot more to do the the human condition. It you think that is what Islam is about, spend some time around engineering graduate students, you will meet a lot of foriegn muslims, and you will see that they are clearly not power hungary, or mentally challenged...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
In the specific case of India v Pakistan, using nukes in Kashmir is a lose/lose for India. No matter which time of year India strikes, the fallout falls on India. Also in that conflict, India currently lacks the logistic capability to launch a sustained ground offensive. They have numbers, but if it goes beyond a few weeks, its a stalemate
Spc Gruhn
Keyboard Infantry since 2002
Japan? Germany? The entire Soviet bloc?
Read a book.
Don't bother trying to talk sense to liberal pinheads, it will just piss you off.
Well, if the army uses these, I don't see why pacifists couldn't.
:)
:)
Peace protesters have long used role-playing to practice strategy, from hassle-lines to multi-actor games. In fact, one author has cataloged 198 forms of non-violent action. The oldest one on record is known as Lysistratic nonaction, where the women refused to sleep with their husbands until they agreed to stop fighting. The play Lysistrata depicts men with huge erections desperate to sign a deal
Some of the strategies that have been used historically include:
-fraternization with the soldiers (including outright seduction, playing sports together, etc...)
-non-cooperation (refusal to hand over information, "losing" municipal records for jews during WW2)
-demonstrations from standing in front of tanks to vigils
-strikes
-sabotage
It would be quite interesting to use these same tools to figure out which methods are most effective and result in the fewest deaths for all parties, and MMORPG would be a very good tool.
If we can't get non-violent means to work better, I'll stop protesting paying for war preparations and our militaries. If they work better however, I ask you to consider what you can do to stop this
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
I see this as an excellent opportunity to make use of the millitary's super-secret robot project the "AWESOM-O 4000." These robots are just amazing... from the re-inforced rugged paper-based shell to the numerous spare-battery holders on the unit.
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
How many Therebucks for a Weapon of Mass Destruction?
"Snipers" will now be known as "camping whores"
Then network them together and they can do the whole war over the internet.
Synergies are basically awesome, and they're even better when you leverage them. -PA
We were explicitly told not to ever drive off the map. Doing so reset your height variable to 0. Driving back onto the map didn't change this, so you became a "submarine tank", able to see (and kill) everyone but nobody else could see you. They'd had several simulations ruined by people doing this, and SIMNET was very, very expensive to run in terms of time, money and personnel. It was cause for serious disciplinary action.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Being better at killing means better at killing the right people while leaving everyone else alive. This is generally a good thing.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
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.
Change against to to help and you have a different point of view, eh?
"You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design