Defense Contracts

[FFE]

I sense a larger purpose to this announcement... It's not my thing, waiting for numero dos. All I can think of are political sensitive things, which are not appropriate for this forum. Things I see every day on the news. IEDs and suicide bombers? *shakes head in absolute dismay*

[hellfish]

If BFC sells a version of it to the government as a training tool, who are you to care or complain?

[FFE]

Because, it stinks of the corporate mentality.

[Ivan Drago]

I mentioned this in the offical 'comment' thread.

I take a positive view of it however - if a version is deemed good enough for real-world militaries, that is only good news for everyone (BFC and their customers).

[Vanir Ausf B]

IIRC they've sold versions of CMAK to at least one military. It's nothing new, or specific to the modern setting. Some people are just pissed because it aint WW2.

[Barrold]

Of the criticisms I have seen (and expressed) this seems a pretty lame one as to the reason for the setting.

At their core, what is BFC if not a corporation whose aim is to make money? Unless the local food store starts taking moonbeams and fairy sprinkles for currency, their decision on earning revenue has to be a prime consideration as to how they spend their time.

BDH

[hellfish]

Lots of independent game designers do work for the government - look at Battlefront's own TacOps! I'd even go so far as to say that the government simulaiton projects even help independent game designers.

[stoat]

This will probably become the training tool of all Muslim extremists looking to kill Americans.

"I'd kill the infidels, but I don't have a 'follow' command."

[Peter Cairns]

You can't have it both ways people,

If BF do what we have been asking, produce a real quality game that simulates modern Company level combat accurately ( be it 44-45 or 04-05), then people who try to teach soilders for a living are going to take a look.

Whats the answer, stay away from anything current, or make the game deliberately unrealistic.

I think a Syria based game is a pretty good starting point for a simulation of modern combat, though I doubt that US involvement in stabalisation , let alone Nation Building, is likely again in this decade.

I think a more likely scenario for a form of limited involvement in Syria would rely on the US giving support to a Proxy, who would do most of the fighting, as with the Northern Alliance, in Afghanistan, or the Kurds during the invasion of Iraq.

Still it may be that some kind of local Proxy force with Soviet weapons and of questionable quality may well be one of the troop choices you get in CM:SF, You may even need to use them in some of the scenarios, with the US element a minor part of your force.

There is also the Grenada option of having to secure and protect a compound or instalation.

Peter.

[Splusmer]

Originally posted by FFE:

Because, it stinks of the corporate mentality.

"Corporate" and "commercial computer wargame company" sound odd when placed in the same context... I know in legal terms it's probably true (I'm sure Battlefront is encorporated in some fashion), but any of these wargame companies don't really seem "corporate" (except Sonalysts, which does feel more like a corporation).

I think virtually all of the small wargame publishers have at least talked/associated with the military in some way, and many of them have contracts to supply software: HPS, John Tiller (separate from HPS, I think), Shrapnel through ProSim (or is it ProSim alone?), eSim (not exactly wargame, but in the same class), plus the aforementioned TacOps/Major H. (I figure that game would have gone away a long time ago if Major H. didn't have militaries supporting him).

So I guess I don't share the ill-will about any such decisions.

[Dillweed]

Know what this forum needs: more marxitsts. And I'm the man for the job! So let me start off:

Down with the battlefront.com wing of the bull**** capitalist rip-off military industrial complex!

[aka_tom_w]

If they can sell Title #1 CM:SF to the military and make a few extra bucks GREAT!

more cash for better and longer CMx2 WWII in ETO Title #2 developement!!

Perfect, I hope they can make a Bundle of ca$h from contracts with the military defense establi$hment!

(I fear however, this is A LOT easy said then done!, but they do have a good track record so far with the Australian Defense Ministry so that should help for sure!)

-tom w

[ October 08, 2005, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Mace]

Originally posted by FFE:

Because, it stinks of the corporate mentality.

Well duh! Don't forget Battlefront is a business first.

Besides, it gets Battlefront access to material that they may not otherwise have access to, and probably ends up subsidising the player edition as well.

[Mace]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

(I fear however, this is A LOT easy said then done!, but they do have a good track record so far with the Australian Defense Ministry so that should help for sure!)

OOOOH An Aussie mod. Must go pester JRCar about this.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

(I fear however, this is A LOT easy said then done!, but they do have a good track record so far with the Australian Defense Ministry so that should help for sure!)

-tom w

Yeah, brilliant, tom, that was the mod that us paying customers never got to see, remember? Not that it amounted to much; one theatre and a couple of units that were inserted for us in a patch, but still, it rankled.

Anyway, its hard to see the value of these games as serious "training aids" for the military. CMAK was an entertaining way for NZers to get interested in their own history; as for teaching realistic tactics, I don't know. A fun diversion maybe but a pretty bad crutch if that was all you used.

[jrcar]

LOL Mace

MD, most (All? haven't checked) of the stuff in our version did make it into CMAK.

Look around on some other forums for new announcements soon as well

We now have significant (briefed Chief of Army last week) senior leadership support and a ground swell of users. Have used both SteelBeasts Pro and VBS1 to prepare our guys for Iraq.

Like C&GSC looking forward to evaluating this one in our officer training institutions.

Steve I think Syria is a good choice

Cheers

Rob

[Madmatt]

Our name is Battlefront.com, Inc.

See that last bit? That's INCORPORATED and yes, believe it or not, we are in business to STAY in business and that means that we like to make a few bucks now and then... Oh and tick off Dorosh whenever possible.

Luckily, we are pretty good at making money. staying in business AND making great games all at the same time. We are cool like that.

Madmatt

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jrcar:

We now have significant (briefed Chief of Army last week) senior leadership support and a ground swell of users. Have used both SteelBeasts Pro and VBS1 to prepare our guys for Iraq.

Like C&GSC looking forward to evaluating this one in our officer training institutions.

In all honesty, this fascinates me. What practical benefits have you perceived in the use of "video games" for preparing soldiers for war? Is it something you can discuss, at least in non-specific terms?

Are the games providing any benefits not available through other means, or is it a way of saving money? Used to be cloth models, sand table exercises and TEWT (Tactical Exercise Without Troops)s were done to save some bucks and wear and tear on the soldiers - is this more of the same, or are there benefits beyond that?

[jrcar]

Happy to discuss this, have presented papers that are in the public domain.

Lets start with current practice.

Currently most "tactical" training (as opposed to management/administrative) around the world is done using methods such as you describe. These primarily consist of "live training" ie troops in the field, TEWTS and "seminar wargaming" which is effectively getting around a table and discussing things.

Live training is expensive, and increasingly is NOT replicating the environment in which our troops need to operate (ie complex terrain). Live training CAN be made more realistic, but it increases the chance of accidental injury and death, and therefore risk. Environmental concerns on training ranges are also limiting the ability to effectively live train using traditional methods. Live training is still nessesscary, and we are looking at ways to enhance it using simulation (google "Augmented Reality").

For example prior to Normandy live practises were held on British beaches that had the look and feel of Normandy. That was not an option available to us when deploying to Iraq. So instead we used "commercial simulations" (ie games) (that we had evaluated so we understood where they did and didn't work) to enable our troops to do mission planning and rehearsal in an environment that we could not replicate for real. They got to know the road network, the "look and feel" (but not smell) of the environment and could start developing SOPS to handle their situation.

We also practiced live training, from weapons handling, through ROE and handling civilians and language/culture training.

TEWTs are a very effective mechanism to get people to develop plans. But they cannot be exercised and so the friction that occurs, and the fact that you are against a thinking enemy, do not come accross.

Recently I ran an exercise using Decisive Action at our Command and Staff Course. The students (incidentaly mostly my peers from officer training in the past) TEWTed the problem, wrote plans and then had to execute those plans against a thinking enememy. The outcome of that activity was that they now have a far better understanding of how to plan for the execution of a Bde/Div level plan than they did before.

In the past this sort of activity was done via "professional military judgement". In an Army that hasn't conducted a real Bde or Divisional attack since WW2 that can be hard to develop

Both VBS1 and SBPro will also be used to help soldiers visualise different environments, understand weapon systems, and experiment with tactics, techniques and procedures.

The fact that this approach works is why I have every commander of training institutions (Inf, Arm, Arty, Eng, Log), Bde comds and the senior generals now demanding this.

The "selling point" is not that it is cheaper (often it isn't, especially the first time you do it) but that it is often more realistic and allows us to do things that are no longer possible to do in a live environment short of real war. It both increases our capability and reduces the risk to our people and their mission.

Happy to keep up the discussion.

Cheers

Rob

[Mace]

Originally posted by jrcar:

Recently I ran an exercise using Decisive Action at our Command and Staff Course.

How'd that go, Rob?

First thing I thought of when CMSF and it's setting was announced was running a campaign using DA at the higher end and linking it back with CMSF for the tactical outcome.

btw are your papers really public domain? I wouldn't mind having a read (besides I can do it at work by saying I'm doing 'research' )

PS still waiting for that SB Pro demo

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jrcar:

Happy to discuss this, have presented papers that are in the public domain.

They may be over my head, but I'd be interested in looking at them if any URLs come to mind.

Lets start with current practice.

Currently most "tactical" training (as opposed to management/administrative) around the world is done using methods such as you describe. These primarily consist of "live training" ie troops in the field, TEWTS and "seminar wargaming" which is effectively getting around a table and discussing things.

Live training is expensive, and increasingly is NOT replicating the environment in which our troops need to operate (ie complex terrain). Live training CAN be made more realistic, but it increases the chance of accidental injury and death, and therefore risk. Environmental concerns on training ranges are also limiting the ability to effectively live train using traditional methods. Live training is still nessesscary, and we are looking at ways to enhance it using simulation (google "Augmented Reality").

We are setting up a giant "laser-tag" system in Wainwright as I type this. Realistic casualty assessment has been around for decades now, using lights and sirens, but this promises to be fully integrated into a computer system able to track all the participants, as well as simulate things like minefields, indirect artillery, etc. The only thing that concerns me is - how closely can the computer simulation programmers really come to replicating what a potential enemy will bring to the field and how it performs?

For example prior to Normandy live practises were held on British beaches that had the look and feel of Normandy. That was not an option available to us when deploying to Iraq. So instead we used "commercial simulations" (ie games) (that we had evaluated so we understood where they did and didn't work) to enable our troops to do mission planning and rehearsal in an environment that we could not replicate for real. They got to know the road network, the "look and feel" (but not smell) of the environment and could start developing SOPS to handle their situation.

I had this in mind when typing my response - it could simulate terrain not available to you, even model specific terrain - tools like Google Earth provide for free the Normandy planners only dreamed of. I guess my question is whether you need all the tactical stuff thrown in to get an understanding of the terrain. At best I'd say yes; at worst I'd say it would be possible to teach soldiers bad habits - an extreme and probably poor example would be using CMBO as a training tool - say an MG at a crossroads modelled after a real one, and having soldiers leave with no understanding of how a machinegun really works or how risky it would be to attack one because MGs were so poorly modelled in CMBO.

We also practiced live training, from weapons handling, through ROE and handling civilians and language/culture training.

Naturally! And this would of course alleviate any problems such as described in my last para.

TEWTs are a very effective mechanism to get people to develop plans. But they cannot be exercised and so the friction that occurs, and the fact that you are against a thinking enemy, do not come accross.

Exactly; I've participated in a few infantry exercises - mostly in a supporting capacity - in a small reserve unit here in Canada, and it always seemed odd that whenever tasked as "Enemy Force" (or OPFOR, if you will), we always lost, according to the script. The computer training area I mention earlier will allow for real force on force stuff - but I guess that is up to the exercise planners, who can still very well decide who shall win before hand, if they really want it that way.

Sometimes, as you know, you are exercising the troops and not the leadership, so it is perfectly acceptable to have a scripted scenario since you really just want to give the troops experience in certain situations - the withdrawal, the ambush, the advance to contact, etc.

Recently I ran an exercise using Decisive Action at our Command and Staff Course. The students (incidentaly mostly my peers from officer training in the past) TEWTed the problem, wrote plans and then had to execute those plans against a thinking enememy. The outcome of that activity was that they now have a far better understanding of how to plan for the execution of a Bde/Div level plan than they did before.

In the past this sort of activity was done via "professional military judgement". In an Army that hasn't conducted a real Bde or Divisional attack since WW2 that can be hard to develop

This makes perfect sense to me since you put it in those terms; so these 'games' are more a tool for senior level planners than your average platoon warrant officer? I can see the advantages in using them just to get used to the idea of writing plans and orders for more than a platoon of men. And yes, brigade exercises have been rare enough in Canada and division exercises non-existent.

Both VBS1 and SBPro will also be used to help soldiers visualise different environments, understand weapon systems, and experiment with tactics, techniques and procedures.

The fact that this approach works is why I have every commander of training institutions (Inf, Arm, Arty, Eng, Log), Bde comds and the senior generals now demanding this.

The "selling point" is not that it is cheaper (often it isn't, especially the first time you do it) but that it is often more realistic and allows us to do things that are no longer possible to do in a live environment short of real war. It both increases our capability and reduces the risk to our people and their mission.

Happy to keep up the discussion.

Cheers

Rob

I'd be interested in specifics with regards to commanders at lower levels, if you feel there are any; I guess I'm seeing the advantages as mainly being a "pre-visualization" (to borrow a term from Lucasfilm DVDs) for staff officers. Are there benefits for section, platoon, company leaders as well?

[hellfish]

jrcar - do you work for Glen at Puckapunyal?

[stoat]

Without reading any of the above, it would be cool to see a module including the Aussie SAS.

[jrcar]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

jrcar - do you work for Glen at Puckapunyal?

Work with Glen, we are both Deputy Directors. I look after development (mainly future) and he looks after support.

MD get back to you later.

Cheers

Rob

[Battlefront.com]

In response to the original start to this thread... oh boy. If we said this was going to be WWII ETO I am sure FFE would have said "what a corporate sell out. Everybody else is doing WWII ETO so what does Battlefront go and do? A money grab! Phooey! They should do something that nobody will be interested in, like the Boxer Revolution".

As other have pointed out, CMAK is in use with the Australian Army. Does that mean that CMAK is a terrible game and we are just a big corporate sellout?

Plus, what should the customer care about the military's interest, or lack there of, in our products? If the game is good then what difference does it make?

Steve