Ken Talley Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Here is an interesting article put up on Usenet that I thought people might find interesting. Ken "Commerce Business Daily: Posted in CBDNet on October 14, 1999] [Printed Issue Date: October 18, 1999] >From the Commerce Business Daily Online via GPO Access [cbdnet.access.gpo.gov] PART: SPECIAL NOTICES OFFADD: Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Code 257, 12350 Research Parkway, Orlando, Fl 32826-3224 SUBJECT: A-MARINE WARFARE TACTICS PC GAME DESC: The Government intends to negotiate on a sole source basis and award, to Atomic Games, Inc., 18201A Egret Bay Boulevard, Houston, TX 77058, a contract to deliver a product that will teach maneuver warfare tactics to the individual Marine Corps leaders using a Personal Computer (PC). The product must include capability for a Marine to play an Artificial Intelligence or another Marine. A minimum of five different representative terrain maps of about 1000 by 1500 meters is desired. Delivery of this commercial item within 9 to 12 months of contract award is required. This contract will be awarded per the authority at 10 U.S.C. 2304©(1) and FAR 6.301-1, "Only One Responsible Source and No other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements." Atomic Games, Inc. is the original manufacturer of the Close Combat III - The Russian Front commercial game and, as such, owns the unique proprietary technology that provides a real-time performance in a realistic tactical combat environment. Atomic Games, Inc. is the only known source that possesses the unique qualifications to develop a tactical decision-making game for the Government within the required time frame and within the $220K available for this effort. A solicitation will be issued on or about 20 December 1999 pursuant to FAR Part 12. This procurement will result in a firm fixed price contract. See Numbered Note 22. All responses to this synopsis must be in writing. No telephonic responses will be accepted. Inquiries may be accepted by fax at (407) 380-4164 Attention: Michael Harris. A determination not to compete this proposed action is solely within the discretion of the Government. CITE: (W-287 SN391848)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Brittz Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Maybe some-one should ph the USMC and tell them there's a new kid on the block - Nope - scratch that - might delay the gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Would you rather they used Quake 2? But the decision probably resulted from the fact its one of the few real-time(there is that profane word again) wargames that deal with infantry combat. I doubt the USMC would pick a turn-based game (no matter how good) to simulate real war. A small unit leadership wargame for the military is no good unless its real time, because real-life is real-time and the enemy isnt going to wait patiently while you compare armor penetration tables (unless they are the Iraqi Army of '91). [This message has been edited by Apocal (edited 10-25-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 Fionn put that up at the now extinct CC3 Gamestats site. For me it is a very interesting announcement. Iwas hoping for a good thread but the new Cc site went up and the old sites died. The dollar figure to me seems a little low right off the bat $220k. The way things work this figure was derived from an unofficial estimate and then a bid from the contractor (Atomic). Since this was let as a sole source contract Atomic could have charges whatever the government was willing to pay. Perhaps BTS can shed some light on this, being in the software biz, but I wonder what the long term repercussions for the CC series might be. If the US government is hiring Atomic to use their propietary engine to make a sort of "CC5: The Corps", then are they then eligible to market this to the public? I seem to remember a rule about this sort of thing and the government getting rights to developments acquired with government dollars. Now we're not talking about much. I would expect a new graphics set, bigger, possibly generic maps, and new unit data for M1s, SAWs, TOW, AT-4 etc. I wonder if any sensitive data will be released to allow Atomic to accurately portray these new units like M1A1s. I don't think they will since they are pointedly looking for a "tactical decision-making game." To me this indicates that they are not looking for something that focuses on the grognard technobabble ala "the muzzle velocity of the M256 smoothbore gun is 1/3 the speed of light and will penetrate 30 feet of rolled homogneous steel armor sloped at 30 degrees from the vertical at a range of 3 parsecs." They seem to emphasize the real time aspect of the CC game: "provides a real-time performance in a realistic tactical combat environment." I envision a training tool for platoon leaders and company commanders to experiment with doctrine and then compare the relative ease of execution on the screen with the real thing in the woods. Hyper accurate representation of weapons systems is to be discouraged. The MILES used to train in force on force engagements does not do this. Any antiarmor system can kill any tank (except the POS Viper). Another point to consider for the atomic bashers, now they will be directed to do patches and they will happily make them for more money. If this works out we may never hear from them again, they'll have their muzzles in the federal cash trough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted October 25, 1999 Share Posted October 25, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I doubt the USMC would pick a turn-based game (no matter how good) to simulate real war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just a quick point, if I'm not mistaken, the USMC has an agreement with Major H about distrubuting TacOps (if you don't know it, check it out on this site, it's a great game) It's turnbased... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 Ken, the snippit you posted frightens me. I personally think CC1 through CC3 is a terrible game at best. I shutter to think that our Marines will be trained by something as poor as that program. I only hope they get somebody from the Marine core to tell Atomic that their intrepretation of how a battle goes down is NOTHING like they portray in their sorry excuse for a simulator. Now I'll tell you how I really feel! hehehe Besides, everybody knows BTS's CM should get the contract...I'm sure they could use 220K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L Tankersley Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 About 8 years ago, I was working on a multiwarfare naval combat simulation, an object-oriented Monte Carlo analysis model with an embedded tactical expert system (this was quite innovative at the time, particularly in DoD circles where FORTRAN was pretty much the standard). At one point, one of our customers wanted to cut our funding. "Why do we need your model," they said, "when we can go down to the corner Egghead and buy computer Harpoon?" I was not impressed. As it turned out, our funding eventually got gapped, and then was pretty much killed due to politics and rice-bowl issues. But it's still a pretty nifty piece of work, all the same. I'm not bitter. No, sir. ;P Anyway, this smells to me like it might be more of the same - somebody in the government plays and likes CC3, and thought "hey, we could use this for training purposes." Depending on what exactly they're trying to get out of the training, that could be reasonable, or laughable. But Atomic had better read the fine print - firm fixed-price contracts are not things to enter into lightly. Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 Geez, for $220,000, I'd steal the RealRed data patches, spend $100,000 on the AI, and laugh all the way to the bank... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 My take on this is that the Marines probably aren't looking for a 100% acurate simulation of combat. Instead, they want a computer program that can teach officer canidates the basics of fire and maneuver in a simple and engaging way. An adaption of the CC series is well suited for this. Yes, it has alot lacking in the realism department, but it has an easily grasped interface. As long as it rewards use of basic marine tactics, it should work fine in its role as a training tool. This is similiar to the Marine Doom modification.. no it wasn't realistic, but it still could be used to teach teamwork. An adaptation of CM, on the other hand, would be a good way to test the validity of current tactical doctrine. It certainly could have the necessary realism to be used in this role. In this role, it would probably be used at a level somewhat higher than officer canidates. Just my two cents. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foobar Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 "BLOOD...the marine sim" yeah, they should DEFINITELY use blood as their simulation engine, because if we got our soldiers running around with spraycans akimbo & voodoo dolls, I don't think there's an army out there that would dare take the field, and oppose us! (if any of you don't know what I'm talking about, pretend that you've never heard of me.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 Spraycans akimbo...lol, a sight sure to strike fear into the hearts of any foe. 8) I'm rather partial to the tommy gun, myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom punkrawk Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 Send the spraycan akimbo and voodoo doll infrantry in first, then attack w/ your regulary infrantry,I mean, if I saw a bunch of guys running at me with that stuff,it would stun me into stupidity ------------------ We ain't got no place to go,let's go to a punk rawk show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 Well my take is tht it makes sense for both parties... 1. Atomic can churn out a mod based on the CC3 or CC4 engine. Given the USMC's needs for an infantry small unit tactics simulator I'd imagine they'll go with the CC3 engine (since it is around) modified with the improvements made in CC4 and with new weapons data. They can do this cheaply and quickly. 2. They're giving this to their platoon,c ompany and squad leaders to play and so want something very simple which all these guys are going to play. It does them no good to get the most realistic and accurate AND MOST USEFUL game out there if most of their flashbang addicted small-unit level COs won't play it. CC meets their needs cause it is very simple to play and illustrates the very, very basic lessons they all need to know. Is it the most realistic etc out there? Not by a long shot but I don't think that's what the USMC is looking for. Remember the US has traditionally been renowned for very poor junior grade officers so ANYTHING which might fix that (including a commercial and basic wargame) will be tried out. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikeman Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 Complete waste of tax dollars that should go to the soldiers' pay, thereby enticing the more experienced, better trained, and more mature to remain in uniform. Mikeman out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 I disagree that it's a waste of money. I had (and unfortunately lost ) a URL to a Marine page that outlined the principles that could be learned from various commercial wargames - and the list was very broad. The Commandant's argument was that anything that helped his Marines find new ways to think about warfighting was a good thing. Marines like games and play games, and it didn't hurt to use games as teaching tools. There was a good article in Wired a while back about Marine Doom. The journalist was very sceptical about how useful it would be, until the Marines waxed him using cooordinated team tactics. He left a wiser man. The deal with Atomic is going a bit further, and trying to tailor the game to more closely approximate real world tactics & hardware. To do a single live fire exercise could cost millions, whereas a decent wargame allows junior officers a chance to fight dozens of battles and take risks they might otherwise be loath to take. Yes, there is a trade off in quality, but that's not a new dilemma either. For the record I have no argument with paying people in the armed services a decent salary either - but $220k isn't going to buy a lot of Marines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 I don't think it is a waste of money. And I don't think they are looking for a tactics simulator either. They want a game that reasonably represents tactical level combat and forces the player to make decisions in real time without full knowledge of the opposition. CM cannot meet this requirement however much advantage it has in some realism areas. CM might be a game for battalion commanders. CC is suited to platoon leaders and Company commanders. I don't think getting them to play it is a concern. Some may like it and play CC at home, but I suspect most will be playing in some sort of sim center where everyone plays the same scenario and then AARs are conducted to see who was successful and why. And I contend that on this basis CC is more useful than anything else out there. The US Air Force had a project in the 80's called project warrior. It was designed to encourage military professionals to play wargames and develop an interest in military history. I don't know how successful it was or if it is still running. It did put a lot of wargames into the base libraries. This was how I got to see the ASL rulebook before parting with cash for it. I salute the marines for this move. I know the army would never do it. We play "warfighter" using something called the Brigade Battle Simulator which (last time I saw it in 94) runs on Amigas on a network and takes hundreds of people to run. There is no AI controlled unit. It is strictly multiplayer. And the guys being trained don't even get to play. The players are training aids. The training is aimed at brigade and battlion staffs. People playing on the computer give feedback to the staffs who then issue orders for the players to execute. One game lasts a week. I am curious to see what teams will be made for this. Will the marines specify they want squad leaders individually represented and each fire team separate? Will they want variable morale and experience levels modelled as is currently the case? Perhaps they will have many combinations and the player has to select his load out according to mission to replicate task organizing normally performed prior to execution. Now THAT would be cool. Taking the German 10 man squad as an example, in CC they have represented by a 3 man MG team and a seven man rifle team. But what if you wanted a 4 man MG team (fire)and 6 man rifle (maneuver)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 In reference to the USMC using games for combat, I saw a show on The History Channel about MOUT training, and it showed some Marines playing Quake II as a training tool . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a non-solicited proposal put forth by BTS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 Oh great, now the jarheads will think they can shoot through hills... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS was 71331 Posted October 26, 1999 Share Posted October 26, 1999 "The product must include capability for a Marine to play an Artificial Intelligence or another Marine." I'd expect Letterman's and Leno's writers could have some fun with THAT requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts