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
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
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
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.
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)
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.
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"
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!"