Slashdot Mirror
Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose
Alien54 writes to tell us that the latest game in the US Army's recruiting toolbox is an impressive game, simulating both weaponry already in use and some still on the drawing board. The game portrays the nation's military in 2015 but, as some critics have said, may lack even the most basic elements of realism. From the article: "For example, there's no consideration that military power or technology could fail or be jammed, she says. And the enemy doesn't learn, in contrast to a certain real-life conflict where the hallmark of insurgents is their ability to rapidly gain knowledge and evolve."
The U.S. Army can't lose, right? The game sounds realistic to me ;)
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
A simulation will always be a simulation. It seldom comes close to the original. You need just to choose how close you can/want come.
In games, this difference between reality and simulation is often dictated by the fun factor. I mean how fun it will be drving a car simulator and if you crash you will need to repair the car yourself after staying 3 weeks in hospital. Not fun at all, so you simulate a crash and... start again with a new one.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
It stands to reason that you can't lose if you can type iddqd whenever you get into trouble.
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
This article is really just political FUD. Games are notorious for having poor adaptation in their AI, and very few FPSes have weapons that can jam or break. Complaining about these flaws which are really just industry-standard "features" is really just an excuse to accuse the US Army of shortsightedness under the guise of reviewing a game.
The game is meant to be a recruitment tool. It shows you all the cool stuff you'll get to maintain as you kick down the door to the wrong person's house and thus create a brand new recruit for the enemy. It's going for the Wow, Neato effect rather than realistic gameplay.
If they built the game so that you could lose, that would make the game interesting and eclipse the whole point of the game.
It's like when they have airshows with the Blue Angels or open house day where civilians can stand on the deck of a carrier. It's not meant to give you a realistic idea of what goes on. They aren't going to show you guys swabbing the deck or the guys emptying the latrine. They show you the good stuff and when you're sold, they hit you with reality.
- the digital camera;
- the lead-acid car battery;
- crocodile clips;
and, of courseWhichever side you're on, you're gonna be with the US Army. The opposing side will look like insurgents of some sort, even though they're in the US Army from their perspective. I always found it funny that the standard-issue M16s jammed semi-frequently, while the AK-47s that you can pick up from enemies never jammed (also offers the popular automatic-fire mode, as opposed to burst fire with the M16s). Also, they added AI in their most recent patch, and it's just horrible. The dudes are idiots, but some of them have impossible aim, so are impossible to kill. I don't know if the same company made the new game, but if they did, that would explain the terrible AI.
As shown by the shock and awe campaign in Iraq, the US armY has a clear advantage in conventional combat. I bet the US can win a war against any naval, air and and armored enemy army. The problem is that the enemy has evolved. Any one with half a brain will not go in a frontal war against the US, but there is an achilles heel, morale
Any nation wishing to carry out a succesful defense against a US invasion has to fight a guerrilla war. Forget about the tanks, forget about the planes, forget about the uniforms. Send your soldiers home with a very lose chain of command and a clear mission. Wage a war of oportunity. Attack only from crowded places, dress as a civilian. Attack the countrymen that colaborate with the US. The goal of your attacks is to make them as shocking and news worthy as possible. The can't do anythinga bout that. They cannot fight against the people without giant political fallout. Wait long enough and you will drive them out.
I think the US Army doctrine is obsolete. These are new times in warfare, where aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines mean nothing.
It's all about finding better ways
Things are not going well over there at all. I used to hear my Commander In Chief say stuff like..."...stay the course...",..."...bring them on..."..."we'll get him (Bin Laden) dead or alive..."..."We'll prevail..." and the latest was "all major military operations are complete and the US has prevailed." Such rant is now gone.
Let's not forget that it was the same rant/rhetoric 30 years ago and because we could not escape reality, we had to face it and lost the war. Do not get me wrong. I support our troops. What I do not support is the bigotry and the "I know it all attitude" our leaders have.
If we had to fight them over there so that we do not fight them here...then let's put in mind the fact that we've lost close to 3,000 lives in this war. The number is about the same as those lost on 9/11.
Regardless of how realistic or non-realistic the thing is, am I the only one boggled down by the fact that the US are using a *SHOOTING GAME* to motivate people to join the army?
Since when was war supposed to be fun and desirable?
"You see the game? Come to the army! Now you'll have the chance to shoot people, for REAL!" - ugh
The game is propaganda, and should be criticised on different criteria than 'realism'.
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
I'd expect the world's single superpower to win any military conflict and roll into any place they fancy, smashing the infrastructure of the country into the stone age. But that's just the easy bit. I think you guys will be judged on how you deal with the hard tasks after that.
The US military has always had a very warped view regarding the benefits that technology in a war can give them. They seem to believe that they won't have to think (and want to get that over to their recruits!), or even see or touch their enemy, despite several high profile disasters and beatings - Vietnam being the big one (and Iraq today). Despite all the soul searching by Americans via movies and other avenues over Vietnam, everyone overlooks the inescapable conclusion - the US got absolutely ripped to pieces (saying they got beat just wouldn't be a fair reflection) because it thought it could beat an enemy by napalming everything from 30,000 feet. So it still remains today.
;-). I get the impression that some people like thinking up acronyms for things (hey, it looks as if you're doing something!) rather than actually concentrating on what they should be doing.
Judging from this game (and the disaster that is Iraq) their view of this hasn't changed, and it's something that they obviously want new recruits to believe as well. The US has the best technology in the world and it never loses!
Oh, and another thing. Does every weapon have to have a bloody acronym? It's not an IED. It's a bomb, or a roadside bomb or a mine (they're nothing new - really). That will do. I don't see any other military in the world that has ever needed to find acronyms for things that they don't like - maybe it seems less real that way
From the blurb "For example, there's no consideration that military power or technology could fail or be jammed, she says. And the enemy doesn't learn, in contrast to a certain real-life conflict where the hallmark of insurgents is their ability to rapidly gain knowledge and evolve."
Well, first it's a recruiting tool. Of course the Americans are going to come out on top. (But, in all honesty, there really isn't a peer military any where in the world.) But more importantly, these criticisms with respect to the Army are ridiculous. There isn't a game made that has meets these criteria. Everyone can pickup as much ammo as they want without ever slowing down. Everyone can carry multiple full sized guns. Guns just miraculously appear whenever you change to them. (Aparently weapons are stored in some sort of pocket dimension like Optimus Prime's trailer.) Wounds don't do anything. You can be miracuously healed in an instance. Guns don't get jammed. People don't get tired. Guns are always accurate. Everyone can drive any vehicle, from snowmobiles to tanks. Oh and the tanks? They take a crew of one, and operate at full effectiveness right up until they explode.
Sure some games have some of these things, but it's rare when they do, and they rarely have them all. Why aren't games realistic? Because they're games. They're meant to be fun, and when compared to fantasy, reality frankly sucks.
You forgot the part where you do something tedious for hours on end in order to get the money needed to buy what you want.
I think that sort of simulation would be too realistic for most people to handle.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Of all the multiplayer FPSs I've found out there, America's Army is the only one I really stick to and play regularly. Despite it's flaws, (and it's hardly a perfectly designed game) it encourages strategic gameplay and teamwork. Perhaps it's because I suck at fast-twitch FPSs, but the idea of actually outthinking your opponents really appeals to me. Quite simply, the game is fun.
Now I know the game is propaganda for the US Army and any ideals it holds, but I haven't joined the forces yet, nor do I ever plan to. The game doesn't get too in-your-face about it, and in all honesty, I'd rather put up with a bit of propaganda as opposed to the in-game advertising that's starting to fill most modern games. At least it fits the context of the game and keeps me immersed.
At very least, America's Army is fun, and that's a lot more than can be said for many of the other shooters out there.
As for this new game in the works, well, a lot of the fun in AA comes from the challenge of your limitations. If you remove those limitations, it would make the game a bit too easy to be fun, and that's what I see this as. With futuristic weapons and tech, you can't follow real-world rules because you don't know what those rules will be, and thus you lose some of the limitations out there. (And perhaps make up unnecessary ones.) So while I find this development interesting, I'm going to wait and see what comes of it.
Remember Vietnam. An army can win almost all the battles it is engaged in and still lose a war for non-tactical reasons.
American army technical superiority is great when they need to go somewhere, do the job and get away quickly or simply sterilize an area from the stratosphere, but when they have to stay somewhere, they suffer from their low headcount.
In the end, it is a recuitment tool to lure all those console kids to join, with the promise of "cool weapons".
Its aimed (no pun intended) at the kids.. i hope there is not an adult who would make a career decision based on a game...
So, you're saying that it's "political" and it's about "fear, uncertainty, and doubt". Well, it is, and it should be. The military is not a game, it's about loss, fear, boredom, injury, limited career and advancement options, destruction, bureaucracy, disease, grief, killing, and being killed. If you don't have "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" about that, there is something wrong with you as a human being. And when the military recruits impressionable young people with games that give them a completely unrealistic picture of the choice they are making, it is perfectly justifiable to criticize them.
Note that I'm not saying that the military is an overall bad career or that military service is intrinsically wrong. The military serves an important function in the defense of our democracy, and we should be grateful to the people who choose military service. But we don't do anybody a favor by pretending that it's all a just a fun game.
In their previous propaganda game, America's Army (which we play a lot at the office because it's free, not because we actually like the US army), weapons could jam. And hitting the enemy is far from trivial; a well aimed shot with a good scope is often worth a lot more than a machine gun. But when you're hit and the bullet doesn't kill you outright (which it might), you move slower, and you can still bleed to death. Pretty convincing game IMO. On the other hand, the game also clearly demonstrates the US view that your own side is always the good guys, and the opponents are always the bad guys: both sides see their team mates as US soldiers, and the other side as terrorists. It confuses a lot of new players who want to know if they're the Americans or the terrorists, and who else is on their side.
CDLXXXVI, no?
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Revolutionary War? If I recall the British had superior numbers, weapons, ships, etc. Though I could be wrong. I will agree that it was a long time ago.
Also, what about the single US SEAL Team in the first Iraq War that, made the Iraqi military think they were a major amphibious assault force? I would say that was a pretty major engagement that was won, by a rather small, extremely well trained US military unit.
Just my thoughts.
I remember reading about the military's cheating a while back. Here's a little background about how the US spent $253 million dollars on Middle East war games in 2002 and fixed it so they would win.
Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
If Saudi Arabia declares war... and actually does something about it, they'd last about 30 minutes. The U.S. would have no moral qualms about turning the middle east into glass. The oil is safe underground, and we already hate the buggers.
The only militaries that could give us a tussle in an all-out fight are Russia and China, and since we're all trading partners that won't happen. England won't declare war on a U.S. ally. Italy? Please. Spain. HAHAHAHHHAHAHAHA. The rest of Europe would be content to send strong diplomatic statements. North Korea? Ashes and glass in 25 minutes. Tops.
If you think I'm joking, U.S. citizens would demand this happen. I know I would get on the bombs and ride them down yelling "YEEEHAAA!". My friends would be shooting Coke machines. And my wife would play both the president and the mad scientist.
America loves a winner.
Assuming no nuclear weapons are used(Reasonable assumption, the US has possessed first strike capability, IE the ability to incapacitate all nuclear silo's and submarines before they have a opportunity to strike back, over Russia and China since around 95 [see Foreign Policy April ed.]. France and British nuclear weapons are few and easily destroyable, since the US built their Silo's and they have no nuclear subs. Israel, India, and Pakistan lack ICBM's to hit us, so will probably end up attacking their neighbors instead. Most of America's nuclear arsenal is mothballed, and so they probably will not use them either.)
Naval: The US has seven super carrier groups; the rest of the world has none. The world's navy could be eliminated in a matter of days, leaving the worlds coast open to naval and air bombardment. The world has more ships, but most of these are refurbished WW2 era battleships, today's naval warfare centers on aircraft carriers. Not only does the US have more Aircraft carriers then the rest of the world combined, they are also newer and more powerful.
Air: The rest of the world lacks the ability to project their air force beyond their borders, The US can just bombard with missiles the large and complex infrastructure needed to maintain a air force(see how Israel disabled Egypt's large and powerful air force by destroying runways in 67). Afterward, the US can use their navy as a staging area for asserting Arial dominance.
Ground: With air and naval superiority, the US can just bomb opposing armies to destroy their logistics. Then the US can just watch them desert and starve.
Productive Capacity: The US has a GDP of 12 trillion dollars; the world has one of 57. The world actually has around 5 times more productive capacity. However, if you consider military spending, the US military budget makes up 49% of total world spending. Take into account Iraq, Afghanistan, and black projects, and The US tips the scale.
Disclaimer: I do not like that my hard-earned cash has been spent to achieve military dominance over the rest of the world. Not to give neo-con's idea's, The US could incapacitate the rest of the world, not conquer it.
Actually, the modern US Army is a surprisingly agile and adaptive force. It's not like the Cold War Army of the 80s that used mass and raw firepower as a replacement for training.
We used to joke about how dumb the Yanks were - nice guys, but dumb as rocks. Things like the Dragon ATGM manual being a comic book didn't help that impression very much. Yank training was very focussed on accomplishing a specific job for a specific soldier, with little to no contingency training. Compare against Canadian doctrine, which was to train everybody as broadly as possible so their soldiers were more flexible and adaptive.
The Yanks aren't quite there yet - there's simply to many of them to train to that level - but in the last 5 years or so, they've come up with all sorts of great innovations in the training process such that they get maximum bang for their training buck. We're adopting Yank training techniques left, right, and centre - because they work, and work well. It is not unheard of for a lesson learned in the field to be incorporated into the next applicable training course a week later.
And while there is still that Yank tendency to swat flies with nukes, they ARE learning - go Google "the strategic corporal" and "three block war" for examples.
They don't have the experience with protracted insurgency that the Brits do (thanks to Northern Ireland and the IRA) but that is coming as well.
And not everything is unconventional war these days. The operations in the Kandahar area the last couple of months were classic combat team in the advance, fighting large enemy fighting formations in the field. Army on army combat has NOT gone away.
The American failures are with political leadership, not with the troops on the ground.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
lots of countries in the world have nucler weapons. only one country in the world has actually used them.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
The other irony being that Saddam was helped into power by the CIA when the country was overrun with lefties and we wanted oil from them. (The same lefties had previously nationalised all the oil industry and forced US companies out when they came to power in a bloodless coup in the 70s)
He only became an enemy of the US when he invaded another country with oil to give himself more market share so he could force the price up. If he had stuck with gassing the Kurds the US would have ingored this and carried on buying oil from him until it ran out.
Look at Saudi. They are a corrupt and non-demcratic kingdom. They fund terrorism (9/11 - Osama Bin Laden is a saudi). Yet they still have US support as long as they pretend to be our allies in public and sell us oil.
I dont read
... but missed the dartboard altogether.
This game, much like America's Army, is a recruiting tool. It's designed to get teens and twentysomethings interested in signing on the dotted line and raising their right hand. So naturally it's going to be "hard to lose," because actually losing might discourage someone from peeking his head into the Army recruiter's office.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.