ArmA Gamers fight real Soldiers in VBS2

[Second 0]

I do think that your (@Celery) point is gamer's point, with no military experience. As you viewpoint seems to be somewhat limited in terms of: "what soldier needs to know and handle". A Looking at requirements of being (good) soldier, there's not much that playing games (like ArmA) would improve. I would say that most important hobbies still today related to (mostly infantry) soldieringskills are athletics and hunting.

It's true that there are some things like improved hand-eye-coordination which improves accuracy and speed of certain tasks, but evetually when looking at big picture, they are not so important that it would make gamer any different from the rest.

I would also hestiate to say that basic set in MP is far from real action. There's no same human factor (as in reality would) involved.

[celery 8]

Second, you are/have been in the Finnish army, right? If so, are your statements based on your experiences in peace time military routines or have you seen actual combat on a peacekeeping assignment?

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

I don't see how games can improve soldier skills, or at least, today's technology in gaming. Weapon simulators are great and everything, but it just isn't the same as real life. I would rather do a well-organized FTX than a LAN party when it comes to improving either my soldiers or myself.

[-HUNTER- 1]

I think the bigger the digital battles get the more can be learned from it!

1 squad action isnt that hard to train with in a virtual world. But when you got 10 squads, commanding elements, communication element, aircover elements, and with smart opfor. Shit will get as complicated as real life, and that complete chaos can be sorted out in what to do. And trained on that.

I would love to see full scale assault with 100 vs 100 or something...

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

It doesn't work when you have to fight the interface of a game in order to do something, or work within the limitations of a program.

[NeMeSiS 11]

It doesn't work when you have to fight the interface of a game in order to do something, or work within the limitations of a program.

I guess it works partly, organizing and planning a large scale attack can be simulated trough computer games as long as all the squad commanders are real persons as those are easier to command (and there is no interfance needed to give them orders), this would be differently if AI is used but IMO AI should only be used as a 'filler' for non essential tasks when you dont have enough humans.

Note that its the 'planning/organizing' that gets trained here, not the actual combat, but more what effects positions/terain features could have on tactics.

(I also read somewhere that the dutch military looked at VBS2 to see what kind of effect new vehicles could have regarding speed (of troop transport etc) and how this would fit in when used under certain circustances)

OFP also tought me stuff like how to read a map (i was kinda young when i started playing OFP but i did figure it out in OFP instead of real life as i rarely needed a map then, but if i do i can easily find my way now in real life. )

[Second 0]

Second, you are/have been in the Finnish army, right? If so, are your statements based on your experiences in peace time military routines or have you seen actual combat on a peacekeeping assignment?

Yup, FDF it is. And no peacekeeping things. Just actively following what happens in traning (while trying to improve myself) and discuss about it. And constantly keep reading about experiences of wars.

Opening soldier's, NCO's, officer's quidebooks reveals also quite much about what is required from them etc. I believe that these things are quite standart in atleast western countries.

I'm relieved to see that Clavicula_nox4817 agrees

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

It doesn't work when you have to fight the interface of a game in order to do something, or work within the limitations of a program.

I guess it works partly, organizing and planning a large scale attack can be simulated trough computer games as long as all the squad commanders are real persons as those are easier to command (and there is no interfance needed to give them orders), this would be differently if AI is used but IMO AI should only be used as a 'filler' for non essential tasks when you dont have enough humans.

Note that its the 'planning/organizing' that gets trained here, not the actual combat, but more what effects positions/terain features could have on tactics.

(I also read somewhere that the dutch military looked at VBS2 to see what kind of effect new vehicles could have regarding speed (of troop transport etc) and how this would fit in when used under certain circustances)

OFP also tought me stuff like how to read a map (i was kinda young when i started playing OFP but i did figure it out in OFP instead of real life as i rarely needed a map then, but if i do i can easily find my way now in real life. )

I'm not trying to nitpick or anything, and you have a valid argument. But...

The squad leader(E-5, or E-6 in the US army) who needs a game to teach him land nav or map reading just needs to be chaptered out for failure to meet standards.

You do have to fight with the interface with a whole LAN of soldiers. Soldiers, when in a large group, a generally stupid or do stupid things. How do you work with things like situational awareness?

I dunno, i have a hangover and adequetely forming my arguments is getting more and more difficult, sorry. I just really can't see much use out of these things, at this current time.

A friend of mine in Germany actually got to use VBS-1 during WLC, which is an NCO academy for E-4s and E-5s. He said it was basically just a waste of time, although he had Flashpoint experience, nobody else did and the civilian OPFOR players just eradicated them. He said it was basically an excuse not to practice D&C or some other inane pretend toy-army garbage.

*edit*

Quote[/b] ]Opening soldier's, NCO's, officer's quidebooks reveals also quite much about what is required from them etc. I believe that these things are quite standart in atleast western countries.

This is where the path to Soldiering lies. Field-training, and studying the military's chosen doctrines.

[NeMeSiS 11]

The squad leader(E-5, or E-6 in the US army) who needs a game to teach him land nav or map reading just needs to be chaptered out for failure to meet standards.

Well i kinda agree on that, but IMO 'games' like VBS are relative cheap and not very time consuming options to show basic stuff as in 'how it should be done', you dont need to dress up and get all the way to a training field to show some basic stuff. (+showing stuff to a group of people is easier inside on a screen)

Though the actual training itself should still mostly be done in real life.

In the end it doesnt really matter, we arent the ones who decide if these things are used or not.

[Heatseeker 0]

I think you guys are not seeing the whole picture.

The training potential of a video game is not measured by having a bunch of guys playing TDM, the game wont teach them tactics, map reading or how to handle a rifle but will allow them to reherse RL procedures and tactics, comunication, navigation, even limited interaction (familiarisation) with areas that are not in their training reach.

Imo its an interesting and inexpensive way to complement real training and expose trainees to situations that are hard to simulate in RL training exercises.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyHg0Asez5I

These guys wont be learning how to operate the equipment but this gives them a chance to practice crew comunication, target aquisition, etc in a very simple way.

Think about it...

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

The squad leader(E-5, or E-6 in the US army) who needs a game to teach him land nav or map reading just needs to be chaptered out for failure to meet standards.

Well i kinda agree on that, but IMO 'games' like VBS are relative cheap and not very time consuming options to show basic stuff as in 'how it should be done', you dont need to dress up and get all the way to a training field to show some basic stuff. (+showing stuff to a group of people is easier inside on a screen)

Though the actual training itself should still mostly be done in real life.

In the end it doesnt really matter, we arent the ones who decide if these things are used or not.

I can agree with that. Using the in-game camera and what-not, the basic concept can be show, I suppose. Only thing is that it would have to be done with human players and stuff, because although I love the game, the AI just isn't there.

*edit*

Heatseeker, the video you gave is pretty neat, and I can see how that would enhance training soldiers already receive.

[alext223 0]

Wow! Thanks for the input guys, and to second, thanks for your input man. Nice to hear it from a person who has to go through it (and if anyone is in the same boat as second, thanks you too. BTW, Second, I've got SB and SB pro PE. So I get what you mean by it just being part of the basic. )

If I could just share my 2 cents worth with what I have read: Virtual training is only good for giving the soldier an idea and nothing else. As for helping officers, I can't comment on that as I can't really form a opinion on it as there isn't much to go on. But if could guess, the REMFs', not the folks on the line, could actually think they were playing a game! Wouldn't that be peace of mind!

But I must totally agree with Second, Training should be mostly, if not completely, done in the field with laser weapon systems as this will provide the troops with a better feel of what to expect when it comes to earning their pay. You can't teach a soldier to practice field craft when he or she is sitting down inside nice and dry, IMO, it has to be felt, not thought of in theory. To those who think that virtual training will make better soldiers, ( This is directed to mostly gamers. ) yes, it may help with the ability to point and shoot more accurately, but if I may use what I see to be a similar example: If I know how to fly a plane well in MS Flight Sim X, does that make me qualified to be a pilot? "Attention passengers,. This is the captain speaking. I've only been trained on MS FS X. Hope you enjoy the flight." YEAH FUC**** RIGHT! I'd be off that plane in a heart beat! As would most other people.

I just hope that various defense departments NEVER place too much faith in virtual training as I see it as a very limited tool and feels more like a "play break" rather than a training aid. Plain and simple: A computer CAN NOT recreate the stress, pressure, noise, dirt, etc of combat. IMHO, if a soldier can not deal with the sensory overload of combat. They are stuffed.

Take it to the field boys!

Not the computer lab.

"War is sweet to those who have never tasted it."

To those who read this and serve in any arm of their nations defense forces.

May God speed your safe return to your loved ones and may you live long and peaceful lives.

Take care all.

Alext223.

Edit: To Heatseeker. Just saw you post, and yes that is applicable and I do feel like I am eating my words, but like I said above "I just hope that various defense departments NEVER place too much faith in virtual training". And please bear in mind that I am only talking bout virtual training.

Later yall!

Edit: If you just read this post, please read my previous post

on the second page where I put forward my question about virtual training.

[celery 8]

Who in here is saying that only computer programs should be used in training? It's been said that with a simulation you can recreate scenarios and environments that are not possible by hiking to the nearest woods and pretending war. So, in a live situation would you rather trust a soldier who has been trained with only "traditional" methods or one who has received additional simulation training?

But of course since I don't have military experience, I probably don't know what I'm saying, right? A holiday at a fitness camp sure increases one's knowledge of the big picture if the legends are true.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

I would rather trust someone who was trained with "traditional," methods. Progression is okay, and there may be some benefit to this particular training method, but I would prefer someone with field experience over game experience.

*edit*

If they have both, that's great, but I don't think the gaming will do enough to make me want to choose Soldier B over Soldier A. I would look at more important things, like practical application, how well they did on qualification range, PT score, ASVAB and GT score, whether or not they're a qualified paratrooper, etc.

I don't understand what you're saying about a fitness camp, but there's more to military service after basic training. Civilians focus on basic training and never think about what happens beyond it. Basic is the easiest portion of (most) soldier's careers, and soldiers tend to have a hard time because they assume that basic is like some sort of crucible and that everything gets easier after that, sad to say it doesn't.

[Second 0]

I'm been speaking from point of "basictraining", not boot camp, but actual armytime of 6-12 months of basic-, specializment-, and "unit"traning after that men is able to get his wartimeposition and unit and go back home.

Preparing men for some theatre of war is different, expacely for invaders, virtaully created terrain and missions might be pretty good in that. Refresment training would be other, it depeneds of what the refresment is about and to who it's given (like tactical operations-series for officer in some particular chain of command). Heatseekers link is quite intresting: i didn't know that VBS could be used in something like that.

@Celery: Yup. You haven't seen the system, so you don't know how it works and how it should work. I can't say that i know the system complitely, but i think that i have somewhat solid feeling about it by my experiences and things (facts, professional viewpoints and pedagogy) i've read. It seems that you dont have a hint about how it's given and what it inholds.

Additional simulation training is bestly done by lasersimulators, when aiming for good combattraning results.

Never the less:

Ofcourse there's some tasks in military what are better if they can be trained by simulators (or then in more dull and/or more expensive manner). VBS can and seems like that it will serve as one platform for those simulators, cutting down the price and maybe providing some kind combined systems. But most of soldiers doesn't needs virtualtraining as their tasks can be trained in (much) better but not necessarily cheaper manner.

EDIT: Seems that Clavicula_nox4817 was faster than me. He has good points again. I would like to add one thing, which i'm not sure Clavicula_nox4817 agrees, but skills of sodlier or aspects of some missions are so much more than that thin area which ArmA or VBS can present. It's better to learn the whole package at same time. Combatsituation taken out of that package and presented as it's own case isn't good, there's so much more directly and non-directly affecting to it.

[Wolfrug 0]

Alexander had his little sand-castles that simulated terrain, and every military leader since then has in various ways been obliged to somehow get an overlook over their future battlefields. 2d maps, afaik, whether they're on a computer or on paper, seem to have been the top of evolution since...er...topography as a science was invented. Am I wrong? I might be wrong.

What a computer game offers is, in fact, a way for not only the strategist, but every single soldier of the unit to get a real, 3d, to scale overlook of the area.

Can this be done with the equivalent of Google Earth's bland grey 3d buildings and terrain undulations? Sure thing. Can it be done better with VBS2 styled applications? I do believe it can.

Give me one good reason why it's a bad idea to run through a mission before deployment in a VBS 2 style environment, where most buildings, streets, hills and forests...hell...individual bushes if you want...are modeled into it?

Add to this a realistic day-night cycle, with many other possible environmental addons (such as sand winds, smoke, fog, rain) which might be detrimental to your visibility or hearing (other effects of such can't exactly be modeled, but then again a soldier isn't supposed to whine about getting a little wet, is he? :P), and I think we've got a winner.

It won't give you a true-to-life smelling-feeling-sounding simulation of where you'll be standing in the future, and that kind of simulation probably won't happen soon either. But it'll give you a pretty damned good idea.

Now add all the other elements to that, such as leadership skills, logistics exercise and squad-based movement, and I really can't see what's so 'useless' with computer game simulations.

I don't think anyone's arguing that simulating war can somehow replace real-world experience, or even 'real world' training out in the bush (or behind a book). It is, as someone said, a cheap and simple alternative which perhaps allows for a slightly more 'whole' picture of the battlefield.

While I did my military service, I had no fricken' clue where anything was, what anyone was doing, or why the hell we were doing what we were doing. That was probably just me though.

Kind regards,

Wolfrug

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

I don't think running through a mission plan before execution is that great of an idea.Garrison is different, but on actual deployment to a hostile fire zone..no way. There are a million little things that need to be done, and there's never enough time to do them, so how can we then throw in something like this? If you don't know what's going on, ask questions. There are no stupid questions, only stupid privates.

*edit*

I'll say this. It's all worth it if a soldier goes through these things and comes out better at the end, regardless of how I or anyone else feels about the whole thing.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Soldiers have to follow "holy" orders and don't waste to much time on briefings and all kind of theoretical possibilities...

Games are made for entertainment and some profit.

Military simulations are usually not in use for playing and have fun.

[Beagle 684]

A single day on the remote controlled combat course will be better suited to train soldiers that two days in front of a simulatior like VBS.

Just software simulator are definitely overestimanted.

Reality is much more complex, and psysical factors have a large impact on combat awareness and personal performance of any team member.

Ever did a simple 72 hours exercise, got cold, overtired, wet and somewhat hungry?

Such simulators may be usefull as preparation for special task.

Military mission do not necessarily always involve firing at targets... Just trust the former recon Guy in this.

[alext223 0]

Well there you have it folks! To those gamers out there ( not all of ya. Just most of ya.) you have as much chance as the next guy. Playing FPS might help you shoot straiter, but it won't make you a better soldier. Hell, even Jihad Joe would make a better soldier than you! Only cause he has held a real AK when we were holding the plastic versions your parents bought you in the toy store!

Later yall!

P.S.

@ Mr. Hopper

Sorry bout running away with you thread.

But, "The army uses war-games to prepare soldiers on a wide range of combat-situations." I just asked "Does it?"

What are your thoughts?

[sprite 0]

If all the soliders were trained soley on vsb/vsb2 etc they would not have the true feelings and senses that are needed to survive. Not to do well, to survive. Ok, so maybe "games" can be used to show communication, and how things go to pot when a team member doesn't pull his/her weight. But really it should be used with regular field excersises, as everyone has said.

So as Jerry said in his article, leave the solidering to those who are trained for it and don't judge them becuase they didn't preform as well in games as gamers.

*edit* removed a comment that on second thought may offend soliders and ex soliders and was too political.