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."

Comments

But wait ...

[Salvance]

The U.S. Army can't lose, right? The game sounds realistic to me ;)

Re:But wait ...

[CnlPepper]

Er right.

Verses the combined military might of Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy to name a few. Bring your head out of the clouds! In a conventional military engagement with the rest of the world the US would literally be slaughtered.

The rest of the world have more soldiers, more planes, more ships and more than 10 times the US production capability and land access via the rest of the continent.

If you really believe what you just posted then you are a blind moron.

Re:But wait ...

[Ash Vince]

In a head to head fight that is absolutely true. USA vs The Rest Of the World would still see the US winning by a factor of 10 to one.

No, in a head to head fight the nuclear weapons would come out and everyone would lose. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) means just that. Any country with nuclear armed submarines can be farily sure they will wipe out whoever takes a crack at them.

Re:But wait ...

[nightsweat]

Europe is a serious economic power and a major global market competitior. Militarily - not so much. The US has heavily overinvested in defense for the benefit of the political contributors in the defense industry.

Now if you're including Russia in Europe that's a whole different thing. Both Russia and the U.S. have about 8000 warheads apiece considered battle ready. Britain has about 200 and France about 350.

Plus, the U.S. doesn't have the language and governmental coordination problem that Europe has.

Re:But wait ...

[Ingolfke]

I'm not too worried about 550 million Chinese fighters as long as we have a few soldiers with superior training and proper motivation. I saw a John Woo movie and from what I can tell one decent guy with a good motivation can take out hundreds of Chinese fighters pretty quickly. Especially if you get them in close combat in a house or a warehoue.

Re:But wait ...

[Chowderbags]

I don't recall that either. What I do remember is that the US declared war on the British Empire in 1812 after the British took US citizens on merchant ships and forced the to fight in the British Navy, refused to recognize that the US could trade with France, and refused to stop supporting Native American attacks in the US frontier. Even though, yes, the British invasion into the US burned much of DC, the US invasion of Canada burned York (now Toronto), the capital of Upper Canada, including it's parliment building. As far as New Orleans is concerned, Canada can't possibly take credit for the attack (and wouldn't want to). It was a naval invasion that utterly failed, with a US force half the size of the British taking a handful of casualties, yet killing/wounding/capturing over 2000 British troops (the irony of this is that it was after the peace treaty was signed). The war itself ended with neither side really winning anything (though both claim victory).

Re:But wait ...

[flithm]

First of all I agree with you that in USA vs rest of world the USA would _probably_ lose, but it's not as clear cut as you propose... nor would that actually be the scenario. We do need to worry about the US military, and yes, from a global standpoint.

The USA spends 466 Billion of the entire world's 900 billion dollar expenditures on military. China alone has more soldiers than USA has regular people, but that doesn't necessarily count for much in modern warfare.

Simply put in a conventional (modern) military engagement between USA and the rest of the world, there would be no winners. Our entire planet would be totally messed up, billions would be dead.

But even that isn't the likely scenario... some countries would undoubtedly side with the US, and the game of diplomacy would begin (which is what happens in nearly every war). Try to think of the world as a big ol' Risk board game right now. Then put yourself in the shoes of a born again Christian who is driven by faith (and thus has a moral excuse for his actions), and has significantly more little army figurines than most other countries combined.

In such a scenario, there's no clear cut winner -- like I said before, everyone will lose.

If you really believe what you just posted, then you are the one who's blinding yourself.

Re:But wait ...

[DMoylan]

worked for the russians in wwii against a technologically superior enemy

worked for the chinese in the korean war

to quote stalin (maybe)
Quantity has a quality all its own

A sim

[El Lobo]

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.

Re:A sim

[Professor_UNIX]

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.

That'd actually be pretty cool. Crash your car and have to call the police, then phone up your Geiko representative to come down and check your car out to see if he'll total it. Then when the ambulance shows up they cart you off to the hospital where the car simulation turns into a medical simulation for 3 *real* weeks. When they discharge you it then turns into an insurance simulation where you have to fight with your insurance company to get your car fixed or written off. Then car buying simulation kicks into effect!

Re:A sim

[dasunt]

That'd actually be pretty cool. Crash your car and have to call the police, then phone up your Geiko representative to come down and check your car out to see if he'll total it. Then when the ambulance shows up they cart you off to the hospital where the car simulation turns into a medical simulation for 3 *real* weeks. When they discharge you it then turns into an insurance simulation where you have to fight with your insurance company to get your car fixed or written off. Then car buying simulation kicks into effect!

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.

Oh wait, they have those games already. They are called MMORPGs. *ducks*

Re:A sim

[Ksempac]

You are confusing 2 words : "game" and "simulation".

A game is something you can play it to have some fun.
A simulation is an attempt to simulate the real world by including real physics and real world constraints.
A simulation might be a game if you can play it. But a game isn t always a simulation.

For example Need for Speed is a racing game which isn t a simulation. You can drive at insane speed and even if you crash into a wall your car wont notice it (not real world physics). Moreover even if you re the most dangerous guy on the road, its easy to get rid of the police (not real world constraints).
On the other hand, TOCA Touring car is a racing game which is also a simulation. If you go too fast you go out of the track at the first turn. And if you run into your opponents, you will receive some damages (real world physics), and might get disqualified (real world constraints.

Political FUD

[Dachannien]

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.

Re:Political FUD

[Fred_A]

I haven't read the article yet but if this is meant for recruiting as the blurb says, a game that puts forward how easily recruits will be killed or maimed by low tech means after they join probably wouldn't fit the bill.

This isn't about being realistic, this is about convincing people to join. In other words it's advertising aka marketing (aka lying).

It could probably also be used to get more funding from the government too.

Re:Political FUD

[EvilTwinSkippy]

This is actually an important part of training. The Army regularly puts their troops up against some of the best live opponents that can find. It's called "Opfor." My spend 2 years in the Mojave desert, knocking off one battalian after another as the bad guys.

In full scale war games, they actually bolt electronics onto the Serviceman's actual rifle that essentially plays laser-tag with blanks. You have to have a clip to make the gun fire, and the guns do actually Jam, and they have simulated land mines, IED's, morter attacks, air strikes, etc. It's all in a real environtment, so you have heat and cold, dirt, body odor, everything.

Some reserve units are actually pretty experienced and can beat Opfor. They are the minority. Most newer units get schooled, and they have the experience of having died in battle to teach them what not to do.

"You die at Fort Irvin so you survive your real battles."

Who wants to join the losing side?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

Abu Ghraib Hidden Level

[ettlz]

Where you get to familiarise yourself with the latest military technology including:

• the digital camera;
• the lead-acid car battery;
• crocodile clips;

and, of course

• the black hood.

I played America's Army for a long time.

[heyguy]

Whichever 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.

It's true it can't lose

[Gablar]

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.

Re:It's true it can't lose

[CmdrGravy]

Your absolutely right but those tactics are nothing new. When the French were invaded by Hitler I think they had the resistance in place beforehand to cause as much damage to the occupying forces as they could.

Churchill had already put in place extensive plans to deal with a successful German invasion including chains of command, weapons dumps etc and had people trained specifically to kill Germans whenever the chance was offered and also anyone co-operating with them.

Even longer ago in Afghanistan when the British were there the opposing tribes simply played them along by on the one hand pretending to negotiate with them and getting what they could from them and on the other doing whatever they could to isolate the British forces disrupt their supply lines. They managed to get the British to agree not to fortify their encampments and later once the position was becoming increasingly untenable they offered safe passage back into India at which point they triggered what is, I think, still the worst Military defeat the British Army has ever received. I think there was only one survivor out of a force of 7,000 or so.

So, these tactics have a long pedigree and with a bit of luck often work which makes it all the more surprising when people tell you that the fact its happening now is such a shock and they hadn't expected anything like this to happen.

Using a *Shooting game* to recruit to the army?

[caranha]

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

Winning wars is easy, winning the peace is harder

[fantomas]

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.

US Military's View of Technology

[segedunum]

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.

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 ;-). 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.

sounds like a game to me

[coaxial]

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.

Real life lesson

[aadvancedGIR]

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.

Re:This is not really a good thing, but...

[EnglishTim]

Afterward, the US can use their navy as a staging area for asserting Arial dominance.

... and then... we will have rid the world of the threat of Times New Roman forever!