Virtual maneuvers: games are gaining ground, but how far can they go?

• Author: Erwin, Sandra I.
• Position: TRAINING & SIMULATION - Cover Story

When it became clear that insurgents would interfere with reconstruction efforts in Iraq, Pentagon technophiles thought it would be a good idea to develop a videogame to help guide soldiers through the messy business of rebuilding war-ravaged communities.

Thus came "Stability Operations Winning the Peace," modeled loosely on the commercial games "Tropico" and "Sim City." Players assume the role of local military commanders of a stability operation, and are exposed to the political, military, economic, social and intelligence levers they can pull in a particular situation, while they learn the consequences of their actions.

"It helps the player understand the many tradeoffs required in contemporary stability operations," says a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency news release. The agency hired the firm Games2train to develop "Stability Operations."

Although games by no means are considered valid substitutes for real-world military training and live-fire drills, they increasingly are gaining acceptance as "alternative training methods," says Julia Loughran, president of ThoughtLink, a consulting firm that advises the Defense Department on military technology trends.

The fighting in Iraq only proves that "we need agility and adaptive training," she says. "Large-scale exercises are not suitable for fighting this enemy."

Videogame technology can fulfill many military training needs at a much lower cost than the traditional large-scale simulations, says Loughran. But it will be a long time before the military services begin to push this technology to its full potential, she adds. "We are trying to steer the Defense Department toward smaller simulations ... It's a cultural change."

Much of the training that enlisted troops and officers receive today is either face-to-face seminars and tabletop games, or billion-dollar large-scale simulations. That leaves a "gaping hole" in the middle, says Loughran. "There is no alternative for small-team training, part-task training."

The Army, to be sure, is ahead of the other services in trying to capitalize from advances in gaming technology, Loughran says. "The Army understands the need to include these alternative methods." The service also has made a large financial commitment, including a $45 million investment in the Institute for Creative Technologies, a think tank and production studio created to develop advanced games for Army soldiers.

Videogames are lagging, however, in the area of "joint" training, she notes. Although the military services no longer deploy or fight in isolation from their fellow branches, videogames by and large are service-unique, and are managed and funded individually by each organization, says Loughran. "The problem is that there isn't a joint command that is directing all training."

Another area that is woefully neglected in military training is the "interagency" coordination between tactical commanders and the State Department and humanitarian and non-governmental organizations, says Loughran. "There is no good technology to train interagency interoperability and interaction."

Among the latest products to address post-conflict operations is a game called "Foreign Ground." Funded by the Swedish National Defense College, "Foreign Ground" is a "first-person thinker" game that focuses on communication with civilians and on how to solve tasks by non-violent means. The game is being adopted by NATO countries as a training tool, says Anders Frank, who developed the game for the Swedish National Defense College.

Loughran believes that the U.S. Joint Forces Command--which is responsible for joint training and experimentation--has yet to embrace the use of alternative, low-cost technologies such as videogames. "JFCOM is steeped in their culture of large-scale exercises," she adds. "The problem is not technology, but the adoption of the technologies and how to apply them."

The idea that JFCOM rejects gaming technology is off the mark, says Jim Blank, modeling and simulation division chief at the command's Joint Futures Laboratory.

"To say we don't have the right emphasis on games is not totally accurate," he says in an interview. "We are looking at games, those that might suit our purposes."

The reality is that most commercial games don't meet the complex specifications of the simulations needed for military mission rehearsals and experimentations, he says. "First-person shooter games really don't apply in this environment."

Combat scenarios today are highly complex, and must reflect how political, military and economic developments can shape a conflict. "There are very few of those games," Blank says. "I can't think of one."

Tactical training, meanwhile, is an ideal application for videogames, he says. These are more entertaining, which is a prerequisite to become commercially successful. "Games are really out there for entertainment and that is how they make the majority of their money."

The traditional simulations and exercises that JFCOM manages are important elements of military training, Loughran asserts. "I am not saying large simulations or exercises should go away. But they should do fewer--they are too costly and take too long to plan--and do more small-team exercises." Dozens of contractors are eager and ready to develop low-cost training solutions, she adds.

Although JFCOM continues to focus on large-scale exercises, Loughran says, the command is "starting to open the door" to gaming technology. It recently partnered with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on the development of a game called "Ambush!" that was designed for players to practice convoy operations such as those conducted in Iraq. "That's where these games can be very useful," she says.

Researchers at the Joint Futures Laboratory are considering...