Budget cut in mil education

[Erwin]

Maybe at this rate CMSF will become attractive.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/19/the_collapse_of_ndu_a_view_from_inside

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120613/TSJ01/306130001/Budget-Cuts-Force-U-S-Army-Use-8216-Low-Overhead-8217-Alternatives?odyssey=tab

[John Kettler]

Erwin,

Does that mean we're going back to degrees? If so, I predict gunnery accuracy will suffer!

Regards,

John Kettler

[JMFC]

I'm at Fort Benning right now, and simulations are the new buzz word for training low level tactical leaders. Simulations (computer games) are really being pushed with current fiscal constraints. Everyone is careful never to say that simulations will replace actual field exercises, but they are used as an alternative to no training at all. There is definitely utility in teaching mission command to squad leaders (limited), platoon leaders, company commanders, and battalion staffs.

In my opinion though, the Army is failing in making useful simulations for two reasons: 1) wanting a magic bullet simulation and 2) reliance on expensive contractors to run the simulations. I will reference my personal experiences with Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS2), the most common simulation readily available to Infantry companies.

When I say the Army wants a magic bullet, I'm referencing their attempt to make a do-all simulation with VBS2. The developers wanted a "Call of Duty"-esque first person shooter to involve individual Soldiers, and they also wanted a simulation that allowed low level leaders to practice mission command through directing subordinates and reporting to superiors. VBS2 fell well short of both marks in my opinion.

As a FPS, the simulation's controls are overly complicated when the learning curve should be as shallow as possible to maximize valuable and limited training time. The one feature that seems to convince commanders that a simulation is realistic is a key stroke for the malfunction drill "SPORTS." This feature is often useless, as indicated on the screens HUD that reads "WEAPON JAM" that can only be corrected by pressing a single key teaches a Soldier nothing. As an Infantryman, you learn to correct malfunctions by drilling "SPORTS" over and over again. VBS2 also prevents Soldiers from receiving commands from their team/squad leader. In VBS2, a rifle squad scenario devolves into a "Call of Duty" mission where every man is for himself, or the leader becomes frustrated with the difficulty of command. He then resorts to "follow me, do as I do." Neither of which are realistic in the contemporary operating environment.

As a tactical simulation, VBS2 fails again due to difficulty in giving orders and poor quality friendly AI. Map checks require a separate loading screen that takes the leader out of the fight. Once on the map, there is no way to determine the difference between subordinate and adjacent units. To use a Ranger School adage, unit locations are pointed on the map with a finger rather than a stick. In an attempt to keep the simulation realistic, the end user gets no added training value but has a significant increase in frustration. Subordinate AI is so poor to the point that they are useless. After watching his AI squads get killed trying to clear the first floor of a building, a frustrated platoon leader will resort to clearing the single enemy shooter on his own. Trying to command large units from a first person perspective is also extremely difficult compounded by the unavailability of mini-maps or waypoints. In the end, any attempt at tactical mission command results in a FPS with twenty AI blindly running behind their leader.

A huge problem that fiscally negates the use of simulations is the need for contractors that run the simluations and need to maintain a reason for their continued employment. While I have faith in the intentions of the Army's senior leaders, they are not familiar with computer games. Their generation took classes in high school and college on personal computing which shapes their view of learning how to use a simulation. On the other hand, the current generation of junior officers and Soldiers grew up with computers. Give them a fifteen minute tutorial on basic controls, and they will figure the rest out as they play a game. Despite the target audience's learning curve, they are forced to sit through a three hour block of instruction on how to use VBS2 taught by a contracted civilian. As a side note to my personal experience, one of my contractors was significantly older with a IT degree (seemingly qualified), but had no actual experience playing games or simulations. Her answer to every glitch or issue was "that's the way the simulation is. There's nothing we can do about it." A single or multiple contractors are then needed to run the scenario. I believe the simulations are kept complex to validate the need for contractors. Everyday, thousands of online games are hosted and administered by unqualified, anonymous gamers. I guarantee a young NCO could administer a simulation at no additional cost to the Army. Contractors are needed, but not in their current numbers.

I cannot vent all these complaints without offering a solution. My solution is the Army use commercial off the shelf (COS) computer games to get more bang for the buck. If a game is a commercial success, there is probably a reason behind it (ease of use, quick learning curve, realism, adaptive AI). In the areas that VBS2 fails as a simulation, I can think of two games that succeed, Brothers in Arms (BIA) and Combat Mission: Shock Force (CMSF).

BIA is a tactical FPS that incorporates some factors of battlefield leadership with simple commands and interface. A squad leader can shoot, but he can also give simple commands to subordinates (suppress, assault, etc.). Put a squad in the same room so that they can also talk to each other, and the intent of reinforcing team work at the squad level is met. Plus, there is no SPORTS command.

CMSF should be the Army's tactics simulation. It is realistic and could be made even more so with modifications. CMSF actually teaches fire and maneuver. The game lets the player focus on the big picture rather than keeping his character alive like in VBS2. CMSF's friendly AI is not perfect, but it is generations in front of VBS2. Seeing fire teams bound or a squad use the appropriate weapons system for a threat is a concept that VBS2 cannot grasp. Additionally, CMSF takes minutes to learn but has a greater depth of commands than VBS2. CMSF would be near perfect if it were possible to use multiple friendly players. A company commander can only give broad commands to platoon leaders (and can only see PLT HQs or units in his LOS). Then the platoon leader is responsible to execute the commander's orders.

The Army can keep spending money on systems that do not work and have only been tested in a vacuum, or we can spend a little more on systems that have been validated by the toughest critics (civilian gamers).

Soap box dismounted.

[Apocalypse 31]

I

despise

VBS-2

[John Kettler]

JMFC,

Welcome aboard!

Absolutely blistering, on point analysis! You guys got UCOFT because General Starry noticed soldiers slugging their quarters in to play Battle Zone, and there was that other thing with GHQ MicroArmor, terrain boards and rules for combat in miniature with classified values. SPI's Firepower board game was rigged to make U.S. weapons shine by removing that which interfered with them from the map. So now you've got an ill though out sim, taught by people who've never gamed? Don't know whether to laugh, cry, go catatonic or what! As far as BIA, it's got some great features, along with some terrible problems. Please see the thread on that game for details. I've played it and encountered them directly or observed them when watching someone else play the campaign.

Regards,

John Kettler

[purpheart23]

So your saying that a game (CMSF) that doesn't even contain the ability to cooperatively play is superior for training JUNIOR LEADERS and building teamwork amongst small units than an infantry simulation (vbs2) built from the ground up to be used as a cooperative trainer for numerous militaries around the world. Then you mention Brothers in Arms as superior as well? Dont know what you're on, but it must be good. The a.i. In vbs 2 is horrific.. no argument there, but the a.i. In shock force and BIA are also pretty horrific. There is no perfect solution but no other program offers the flexibility of the vbs system and heaven forbid there be a learning curve to anything. No I don't own stock in BIS. I just appreciate there software.

[Stagler]

Beauty about VBS is that you can have a room full of insurgent role players next door to suplement or command the AI.

[JMFC]

CMSF would be better if it could be played cooperatively. Sure VBS2 is cooperative, but watch a room full of Soldiers try to work together. Even with the best intentions, it doesn't happen. Teaching platoon and company level tactics to junior leaders is easier with CMSF. Squads will try to act like squads. In VBS2, subordinate AI just follow behind and do not contribute. Additionally, a steep learning curve is a huge deal. Training time is a commodity and a valuable resource. Let's not waste what little is available.

Yes, you can have all the OPFOR you want in VBS2, but CMSF has head to head as do all FPS. To be honest though, a thinking enemy is not a top priority when my goal is to teach tactics. MILES is great, but a live fire is better which has nothing but pop up targets. Too many training events already overuse "curve balls" to catch leaders off their guard. Strong foundations in fundamentals allow our critical and creative thinking leaders to adapt to complex and changing situations.

VBS2 has seen a lot of use, but there are much better systems commercially available. Being built from the ground up just meant that a lot of funds were wasted to start from square one, and an inferior product was still produced. Okay, no product is perfect, but why not save resources with commercial off the shelf products when the contracted answer does not work. VBS2 does not work at the intended level. The blame can be placed on the leadership of junior officers and NCOs, but really, shouldn't we design products with the end user in mind?

[purpheart23]

shouldn't we design products with the end user in mind?

We should, but we have to remember we're dealing with the DOD. Nothing is ever that simple.

[John Kettler]

JMFC,

Made a mistake. Should've been SPI's Firefight, NOT Firepower!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Erwin]

Getting pretty scary when a nation starts eviscerating its training and education programs - esp in the military... presumably to "get more troops in the field". I always think of Germany in 44 till the end.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/16/cutting_school

[JMFC]

I am not very familiar with NDU, but it does seem that the first courses and disciplines to take cuts are part of the “softer sciences” that are difficult to measure progress. At the tactical level, I was just part of a pilot program to incorporate Critical Thinking into military education. My instructors and peers in the program really enjoyed it. We learned to identify the most frequently used biases, traps, and fallacies, and then we discussed ways to work through these with subordinates and superiors. Despite receiving high marks from participants, it seems Critical Thinking will not be incorporated into low level military education. The shortcoming was not Critical Thinking’s usefulness, but the fact that there is no real metric to measure progress. Evaluators that would judge the program needed more than subjectively graded essays. We tried personality and logic tests, but they still lacked hard evidence that Critical Thinking made us better leaders.

I am not advocating that the Army should adopt Critical Thinking. I am providing this as an example that during stressful financial constraints, hard evidence through evaluations wins out in terms of curriculum, and the softer, harder to quantify sciences take a back seat. This trend may get us over the next tactical or operational hurdle, but when do we start grooming our strategic leaders? At some point, leaders need to be able to transition to abstract thought in order to plan 10, 20, and 30 years into the future.

[Erwin]

It's the short term patch at the cost of a long term solution. It smacks of either desperation or an implosion of some kind and is very reminiscent of the cutbacks and other events that took place as Britain's global power came to an end. Worrying re the future considering how belligerent China is being in the China Sea.

[JMFC]

As cutbacks occur, hope comes from reading "Prodigal Soldiers" by James Kitfield. It chronicles how junior and mid-level officers from all four services picked up the armed forces from the ashes of Vietnam. Men like GEN McCaffrey took budget cuts and a hollow army and transformed it into a force that recruited an all volunteer force, developed Air Land Battle, and overwhelmed Iraq in Desert Storm.