Steel Beasts as an army training tool

[Claus B]

Ssnake, thanks for you comments on the use of SB as an army training tool (Panzer Elite 2 thread).

 

The November 2001 issue of "Kentaur" says:

 

"Steel Beasts is an interactive PC program. The program is a very motivating training aid. Steel Beasts is an example of a "commercial off-the-shelf" program. Price pr. CD-ROM is about 380 DKR.

The program, that can for the time being simulate Leopard 2 A4 and M1A1 can be used for the pesonal education of gunner and commander. The program is also considered usefull for tactical education up to and including Squadron level. The program has been tested at the Army Combat School and tank units with the Jutland Dragoons in order to discover the potentian of the program. The tests were positive. The Army Combat School has therefore recommended to the Army Operational Command (HOK) to aquire the program and use it in the army schools and armoured regiments."

 

Claus B

[Archie Pellagio]

It's not overly surprising, many game's / sims have been used by the military for a few years now.

Navy SEAL's use a modified version of Rogue Spear, don't the delta force guys use a modified version of Rainbow Six?

Codemasters are making a version of Operation Flash Point:Cold war Crisis for the marine corps.

 

Don't some ANG units use Falcon 4?

 

So Steel beasts seems a prime candidate for it...

[Ssnake]

Personally, I see only limited use for infantry simulations as such, because they lack one of the most important factors - fitness and fatigue, weapons skill and dexterity. So you're down to training the coordination of teams - not a small accomplishment, but also not enough. Besides, the financial benefit of a computer based simulation vs. actually going to the field with MILES gear is not even close to the potential savings of a tank simulation; it eliminates ammo and fuel expense as well as a reduction of maintenance efforts (not to speak of the beneficial results for the environment). These are the real cost drivers, hence the attraction for simulations is higher.

 

Because of the huge savings potential, there was an early demand, and acceptance for centralized multi-million dollar installations (COFT, ...) even before computer games were seriously being considered as an addition to the simulations portfolio of military training.

The high-class, but expensive vehicle training centers excludes most reserve units from optimized training, however. This is where a key market for Steel Beasts is - in the US, it's the National Guard. They cannot visit the Army training centers for budgetary restraints, and a CHEAP, decentralized off-the-shelf solution for the most popular computer platform (the Wintel PC) is exactly what they need.

 

Another area is the preparation of tactical training, and a continuous training opportunity for junior leaders to better understand platoon and company level tactics.

[Archie Pellagio]

Well I agree on the infantry game's, I guess they are just used for tactics.

 

You mention full mission simulators, they themselves are not cheap. I don't have a clue about the tank ones, but for a Level-5 taining flight simulator, the combat simulator's, they are VERY expensive, but the advantage is many militaries hope to be able to link a good number of them.

 

I know the RAAF is hoping to buy four to six L5 F/A-18 simulators, and there is talk of making a more reliable pilot reserve force, these are a significcant benefit to that...

[Ssnake]

High End simulators for tanks are cheaper since they do not require the big hydraulics that are needed for flight sims. One serious cost driver is eliminated. Still they are pretty expensive. Krauss-Maffei-Wegmann's AGPT installation which offers simultaneous, networked training for three tank crews of three members each is a set of four standard containers (one for briefing room and instructor terminal), and costs 10 Million US dollars per site. It offers all elements of the crew's workplace (save for the loader).

 

Steel Beasts does not compete in all areas with such simulations. But you can still train TC/gunner interaction, platoon communication and coordination, even company scale maneuver, and the coordination of tanks and mechanized infantry and other supporting forces (artillery, tank hunters, medics, reconnaissance).

Real world tactics work in the game as well (within limits, of course). There are very few game specific rules that can be exploited (actually, I'm sure there must be some, but I can't come up with an example, so it can't be many).

 

Steel Beasts Pro, a new product line with additional instructor functionality, is tailored to the specific needs of goal-oriented training and detail rich mission recording for better after action reviews; this is the essence of the various customizations that we have finished since December 2000. We will also add other functionality, and where it adds to the fun that our targeted consumer market customers are supposed to have, these additional features will seep into the consumer version as well.

[Manic Moran]

Why not just make all funtions desired by the military into the civilian version? Works fine for Major H. (TacOps)

 

NTM

[Archie Pellagio]

Originally posted by Manic Moran:

Why not just make all funtions desired by the military into the civilian version? Works fine for Major H. (TacOps)

 

NTM

 

Not sure about tanks, but wouldn't there be performance related issues, range of weapons, electronic systems etc that would be classified etc?

Also, dumbing down is important, most people have no interest in even the current levels of realism in most tank and flight simulator games, yet alone even more realistic.

Falcon 4 with all the patches etc, it became so boring, to just take off, you have to do the proper method, while that is good for those who enjoy the anal retentivity of such things, even long time flight sim fan's like myself get turned off by it.

There needs to be a balance between realism and playability...

[Ssnake]

Some demands by the military are downright counterproductive for a game. For example, they want the instructor to have complete control over about everything at runtime. This would be the ultimate spying and cheating tool, and the thought that someone could hack the code to "patch" the consumer version with instructor functionality is a nightmare for all multiplayer games.

 

Some aren't interesting, or even less realistic in our opinion!

For example, a recent customization involved a library of tactical icons. While I admit that the current consumer version is a bit short of them, the basic assumption was that in combat you don't plot all the complicated symbols according to a field manual written by a committee of "anal retentive staff officers" who tend to make a science out of it, but that you as the TC would simply scribble down a PC symbol, and anti-tank missile symbol, a tank and an infantry symbol, and that's about all you need to know in such a situation.

 

On the other hand, many other things do make sense, and they will make it into the consumer version. Last but not least we want to sell the Pro version at a significantly higher price. This requires a significant difference in functionality as far as professional training requirements are concerned. We couldn't live from the consumer version alone.

[Simon Tan]

Ssnake...it's just in case you have to take on a field bakery or the like.

 

Steel Beasts has pretty sparse terrain. I would have thought that it would be one major item for a high-ened varaint to be able to have a variety of terrain density. Probably also have to rewrite it to support multi-processor capability.

[Ssnake]

Sparsity of the terrain is primarily an artwork issue; remember that SB1 literally was a No Budget production, and we simply couldn't afford to invest hard cash into more textures and some other elements that help to make the landscape appear more lively.

As of a secondary note, it also is a matter of the amount of work that you put into the map design. It turned out to be impractical to create highly detailed map; I spent four months on the Beedenbostel map, with an average working speed of about one grid square per hour.

Steel Beasts Pro will eventually get import functions for certain digital map files that are popular in the various armies, so they can import existing terrain data. Eventually we will get the chance to license the one or other patch of terrain for the consumer version itself.

 

Last but not least there are some technological limitations of the current engine that we will (hopefully) eliminate with the new SB2 engine. We recently visited some latest generation high-end simulator, based on multimillion dollar Silicon Graphics hardware. The investment/yield ratio in terms of usability of the virtual terrain was incredibly high. I daresay that even the dated SB1 engine does a much better job in showing fine terrain variation. It comes at a cost - limited screen resolution, limited field of view - but we still see a significant advantage in the general competition for us simply because a five year development phase for a high end simulation results in an almost obsolete product once it is finished.

Today's high end simulators offer 1996 graphics engines, and most of them not even very good ones by 1996 standards. You don't like the 1995 graphics of Steel Beasts anymore in 2002? Buy a new copy in October. Even if you buy a new PC for it as well (because that old 333 MHz Celeron doesn't cut it anymore), it is much, much, much cheaper than the standard solution. And it offers much more flexibility as well.

 

Actually, many people in the Armies are pretty reserved when being confronted with Steel Beasts' capabilities for the first time, because it is too cheap. If it doesn't cost millions, it can't be good. Too good to be true...

Those willing to examine it in-depth however quickly become our evangelists.

 

SB cannot replace high end simulators with mock-up crew stations, but it definitely is a valuable addition for them.

[Scott Cunningham]

The problem with Icons is that their is now a new one created for each type of weapon fielded. For instance, Bradley mech infantry has a different symbol tham M-113 Mech Infantry. LAV Infantry is also designated with a new symbol, as is the AGS units. That isnt the main problem. The specialty units all have their own sumbol that signifies what they do. When you have a mapload of Messkit Repair Battalions and such running around, things get confusing.