Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the propaganda-machine dept.

United States 636

Alien54 writes to tell us that the latest game in the US Army's recruiting toolbox is an impressive game, simulating both weaponry already in use and some still on the drawing board. The game portrays the nation's military in 2015 but, as some critics have said, may lack even the most basic elements of realism. From the article: "For example, there's no consideration that military power or technology could fail or be jammed, she says. And the enemy doesn't learn, in contrast to a certain real-life conflict where the hallmark of insurgents is their ability to rapidly gain knowledge and evolve."

cancel ×

636 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

But wait ... (5, Funny)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17010810)

The U.S. Army can't lose, right? The game sounds realistic to me ;)

Re:But wait ... (0, Troll)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014352)

The U.S. Army can't lose, right?

In a head to head fight that is absolutely true. USA vs The Rest Of the World would still see the US winning by a factor of 10 to one.

The problem is that the enemy knows that now, and hides behind civilians.

Re:But wait ... (5, Insightful)

CnlPepper (140772) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014494)

Er right.

Verses the combined military might of Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy to name a few. Bring your head out of the clouds! In a conventional military engagement with the rest of the world the US would literally be slaughtered.

The rest of the world have more soldiers, more planes, more ships and more than 10 times the US production capability and land access via the rest of the continent.

If you really believe what you just posted then you are a blind moron.

Re:But wait ... (1)

CnlPepper (140772) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014512)

I hate it when the post I reply to is modded so far down that the threading system makes it look like I'm talking to the parent :/ (browsing with threshold 1, nested, highest scores first)

Re:But wait ... (1)

tttonyyy (726776) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014788)

I hate it when the post I reply to is modded so far down that the threading system makes it look like I'm talking to the parent :/ (browsing with threshold 1, nested, highest scores first)
Hint: Use the quote button before posting - it'll save you the grief. :)

Re:But wait ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014684)

ahhh, while that may be true, it would be a very, very costly war on all sides. The US has nukes, the point of which, you should only use as a last resort, because the rest of the world also has nukes. Should the rest of the world declare war, the US will make sure its nukes are ready to go at a triggers noticie, and keep a eye out for other countries trying to nuke the US.

The US has a very strong military, and also has that military already mobilised (altho in poor condition after fighting in Iraq for so long), and could easly defend itself agaist any single nation. If a arab nation declared war on the US, and made as allies alther nations that did the same, the arab nation would most likely be on the front line, trying to bog down the US military where it stands, which should be effective if Saudia Arabia also declares war against the US, as well as Iran, Iraq would then be squashed, pinning the US military on two sides, air evactuation could prove effective to remove the US troops, but Arabia and Iran could use sufface to air missles to take them out (if they have any left, im sure they do, in any case, insurgents and terrorists groups like alquada will provide them, to try and take out as many US troops and planes as possible, the US should be able to get out, but it lose a good portion of its military, certianly a lot of whatever equimpment is in Iraq. If the US stays to do a proper evactuation, it will still have to hold off two sides, this will demorilise the US troops, and most certianly take out a good number of US troops (altho, the US will inflict heavy casualties, unless terrorists and insurgents already in Iraq can cause as much destruction as possible on US troops so they cant mount a effective or good defence.

The US has bases and troops in lots of countries, over a houndred if i recall. The countries you mentioned will most certianly pin down the US bases as soon as they can, and slater whatever US troops they can find left in them. There is no way the US will try to defend those bases with what little military force it has outside of the middle east, the bases are surrounded with little defences and troops, trying to defence would just waste resources.

From this point, politics will play quickely. Is the rest of the world going to declare war? More importently, what nations inside of america will also declare war on the US, or will ally with the US? The most importent nations would be Canada and Mexico, with Canada being in a stronger strategic position (being near the US, as well as Russia and Europe, it would make the perfect place to have if you wanted to invade the US). If Canada sides against the US, Alaska will be the first state to fall, its surrounded by Russia and Canada, US forces should be very thin, and most likely making a withdraw into its own territory looking for a place to setup a defencive line. Alaska, while being a very good place for the US to have, just dosent have a big population, and i assume not a very good military arm either that is actually there, so it should fall rather fast, no more then a month if Russia and Canada push hard.

The US will be totally on the defensive by this point, with its military mostly in the middle east taking a pounding, and invasion threat from Canada and Mexico (or even one of those), the US would be insane not to withdraw what forces it does have to a stronger defencive position, most likely trying to push to Toranto in Canada along the mountians, as well as placing defences along the rocky/cascade mountian ranges, as well as whatever rivers that exist along the planes that could act as a naturaly boundry to Canadian forces.

Anyways, thats skip ahead, with the US forces pushed back into its own territory, and the rest of the world agaist us, the question now comes, do we use nukes? If we do, so will the enemy. This question could have been asked at anytime in the battle, on either side, but now the US is in a desprate situation, do you hold them off and pray you can manufacture enough techno weapons to defeat your enemy (like Hittler should have done in WW2)?, or, do you go on the offensive (like Hittler did), and lose most chances for effective defence. Defence this day and age is quite limited, odds are, you will want to attack your enemies, and there are your nukes, with little hope of winning without using them. In any case, if nukes are used, we might be looking at a total death list of a billion people, if not, a few million probably. In any case, a very costly war on all sides, but one with a potential to leapfrog civilisation again.

Re:But wait ... (-1, Flamebait)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014782)

Geez you've really thought this through haven't you?

Have you ever thought of getting a girlfriend? Or a life?

Re:But wait ... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014828)

Considering you're also posting at /., have you ever thought of getting a girlfriend? Or a life?

Re:But wait ... (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014814)

Er right.

Verses the combined military might of Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy to name a few. Bring your head out of the clouds! In a conventional military engagement with the rest of the world the US would literally be slaughtered.

The rest of the world have more soldiers, more planes, more ships and more than 10 times the US production capability and land access via the rest of the continent.

If you really believe what you just posted then you are a blind moron.


Three words: Fuel Air Bomb

Re:But wait ... (4, Insightful)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014532)

In a head to head fight that is absolutely true. USA vs The Rest Of the World would still see the US winning by a factor of 10 to one.

No, in a head to head fight the nuclear weapons would come out and everyone would lose. Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) means just that. Any country with nuclear armed submarines can be farily sure they will wipe out whoever takes a crack at them.

Re:But wait ... (2, Informative)

RKBA (622932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014752)

Does that include the 550 million Chinese people who are available for military service as well? Although I don't know the size of the total armed forces (including reserves and National Guard) of the USA, the total US population is only about 300 million people whereas the population of China is almost twice that. Their standing army is about 3.5 million strong.
Source: CIA Factbook [cia.gov]
Chinese Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 281,240,272
females age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)

Re:But wait ... (1)

zero_offset (200586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014766)

Are you proposing that they'll throw rocks at us?
There is far more to an effective military than raw manpower figures.

Corrigendum (1)

RKBA (622932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014852)

the total US population is only about 300 million people whereas the population of China is almost twice that.
Oops, I should have double checked. According to the CIA Factbook the population of China is 1,313,973,713 so that would make China's population about 4.4 times the size of the population of the USA.

What do you suppose would happen if China were to start dumping all those trade deficit US Dollars it's accumulated? China has quite a lot of leverage over the USA because of our fiscal problems.

Re:But wait ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014578)

And even when they do lose, government still wins.

When you're in the administration business (meaning the ruling class, i.e. the power elite), you profit regardless of whether you "succeed" or "fail" -- more often than not, when you "fail" you are rewarded with even more revenue and power.

Can you imagine a more lucrative business to be in? History sure can't.

Not anymore (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014774)

Since the Nuremberg Trials after WW2, it has become increasingly common to try at least a few leaders of the losing party as war criminals. The lower ranks within the ruling class will still get away, but those at the very top do have to fear for their lives if they lose.

Latest example: Saddam Hussein who will probably be hanged.

Re:But wait ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014768)

Tell it to the Vietnamese.

Re:But wait ... (1)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014866)

The U.S. Army can't lose, right? The game sounds realistic to me ;)

Ha! You obviously have a short memory and don't recall the time that Canada invaded (as a response to a US invasion of Canada) and kicked your ass all the way to New Orleans...

A sim (5, Insightful)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014336)

A simulation will always be a simulation. It seldom comes close to the original. You need just to choose how close you can/want come.
In games, this difference between reality and simulation is often dictated by the fun factor. I mean how fun it will be drving a car simulator and if you crash you will need to repair the car yourself after staying 3 weeks in hospital. Not fun at all, so you simulate a crash and... start again with a new one.

Re:A sim (1)

Ossadagowah (452169) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014406)

A simulation will always be a simulation. It seldom comes close to the original.

And you go to war with the Army you have. With everything so unrealistic in the sim, I can't help but wonder if Rumsfeld planned the scenario.

Re:A sim (2, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014448)

A simulation isn't much good if it doesn't provide at least a rough approximation to some aspect that it is trying to simulate. I am not familiar with with this particular game, but I've played AA a several times and one thing you can discover all too easily is how to be shot in the head by the opposing team if you go blazing in.

Re:A sim (5, Funny)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014466)

I mean how fun it will be drving a car simulator and if you crash you will need to repair the car yourself after staying 3 weeks in hospital.
That'd actually be pretty cool. Crash your car and have to call the police, then phone up your Geiko representative to come down and check your car out to see if he'll total it. Then when the ambulance shows up they cart you off to the hospital where the car simulation turns into a medical simulation for 3 *real* weeks. When they discharge you it then turns into an insurance simulation where you have to fight with your insurance company to get your car fixed or written off. Then car buying simulation kicks into effect!

Re:A sim (3, Funny)

hnile_jablko (862946) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014582)

That'd actually be pretty cool. Crash your car and have to call the police, then phone up your Geiko representative to come down and check your car out to see if he'll total it. Then when the ambulance shows up they cart you off to the hospital where the car simulation turns into a medical simulation for 3 *real* weeks. When they discharge you it then turns into an insurance simulation where you have to fight with your insurance company to get your car fixed or written off. Then car buying simulation kicks into effect!

You seem to have the process flow nailed on this one. So, I need to ask, do you still have a license?

Re:A sim (5, Insightful)

dasunt (249686) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014600)

That'd actually be pretty cool. Crash your car and have to call the police, then phone up your Geiko representative to come down and check your car out to see if he'll total it. Then when the ambulance shows up they cart you off to the hospital where the car simulation turns into a medical simulation for 3 *real* weeks. When they discharge you it then turns into an insurance simulation where you have to fight with your insurance company to get your car fixed or written off. Then car buying simulation kicks into effect!

You forgot the part where you do something tedious for hours on end in order to get the money needed to buy what you want.

Oh wait, they have those games already. They are called MMORPGs. *ducks*

im in ur office, collectin ur paycheck (3, Insightful)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014770)

You forgot the part where you do something tedious for hours on end in order to get the money needed to buy what you want.

I think that sort of simulation would be too realistic for most people to handle.

Re:A sim (1)

tttonyyy (726776) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014642)

...and then spend so much time choosing a car and forgetting to check regularly on the wife simulation that the divorce simulation kicks in, probably terminating the house simulation in the process.

Wow, you could literally simulate your whole life while your real body wastes away and becomes an organic component of the sofa.

Greetings slashdot readers. :)

Re:A sim (4, Interesting)

Ksempac (934247) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014626)

You are confusing 2 words : "game" and "simulation".

A game is something you can play it to have some fun.
A simulation is an attempt to simulate the real world by including real physics and real world constraints.
A simulation might be a game if you can play it. But a game isn t always a simulation.

For example Need for Speed is a racing game which isn t a simulation. You can drive at insane speed and even if you crash into a wall your car wont notice it (not real world physics). Moreover even if you re the most dangerous guy on the road, its easy to get rid of the police (not real world constraints).
On the other hand, TOCA Touring car is a racing game which is also a simulation. If you go too fast you go out of the track at the first turn. And if you run into your opponents, you will receive some damages (real world physics), and might get disqualified (real world constraints.

Re:A sim (2, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014658)

Arguably, making failure possible is more important in a game than in a simulation. What makes the game fun is that you don't suffer any consequences from failure, so you can try again and beat it.

Writing a perfect simulation is like writing a piece of software which can prove any theorem. It's not possible in any practical sense.

The key in the simulation are the assumptions it embodies. We currently spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Presumably this is to cover just about every forseeable circumstance to a sufficient degree that victory can be acheived, if not promptly, eventually. It may well be that under every forseen scenario, the resources we have can be adapted in time to achieve victory.

Wisdom, however, takes into account the unforseen. The respose to overwhelming force is to choose and limit the time and place of conflict carefully, probing the response and discovering oversights, which there always are. This means we shouldn't put too much confidence in our simulations.

Another thing it would be wise to consider is the difference between what you might think you're willing to do in a hypothetical situation, and what you're actually willing to do when it comes up. Nobody can say whether success in Iraq could have been achieved by a different strategy, but I believe we didn't commit resources to establish order in the post invasion phase because of an unwillingness to face up to the economic costs of occupation beforehand. The initial estimates of the war cost were $100 to $300 billion. These figures were amended for political reasons to around $50 billion. We are now well above the $300 billion mark, not because of the unforseen, but our unwillingness to acknowledge forseeable possibilities. In effect, we decided to use the best case scenario in our planning because it would be easier to sell. This is not an unheard of phenomenon. Any geek can tell you tales of project management by wishful thinking.

Why, of course (2, Funny)

spellraiser (764337) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014338)

It stands to reason that you can't lose if you can type iddqd whenever you get into trouble.

Re:Why, of course (1, Funny)

cHALiTO (101461) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014756)

Right. Plus if they keep hitting idkfa every 20 seconds, some people in the armament industry are bound to get very very rich.

Political FUD (4, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014348)

This article is really just political FUD. Games are notorious for having poor adaptation in their AI, and very few FPSes have weapons that can jam or break. Complaining about these flaws which are really just industry-standard "features" is really just an excuse to accuse the US Army of shortsightedness under the guise of reviewing a game.

Re:Political FUD (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014372)

This article is really just political FUD. Games are notorious for having poor adaptation in their AI, and very few FPSes have weapons that can jam or break.
And the first Army game *does* address these: weapons *do* jam (occasionally) and most opponents are human.

The new game has different goals so it uses a different game model. Duh.

Re:Political FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014798)

Does the simulation promote making relations with the locals? Taking off shoes before entering a family home? Greeting in a non threatening way? or is it shoot first, shoot again later?

Re:Political FUD (4, Insightful)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014490)

I haven't read the article yet but if this is meant for recruiting as the blurb says, a game that puts forward how easily recruits will be killed or maimed by low tech means after they join probably wouldn't fit the bill.

This isn't about being realistic, this is about convincing people to join. In other words it's advertising aka marketing (aka lying).

It could probably also be used to get more funding from the government too.

Re:Political FUD (1)

Uncle_Al (115529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014634)

Complaining about these flaws which are really just industry-standard "features" is really just an excuse to accuse the US Army of shortsightedness under the guise of reviewing a game.

Hmm...Actually it seems the military did commision (at least some of) those "industry-standard" flaws:
(Citing the article quoting Mark Long, co-CEO of Zombie, where the game was built under contract)
"High tech has all kinds of low-tech vulnerabilities and they didn't want the vulnerabilities programmed in."

Re:Political FUD (2, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014648)

The thing is, America's Army had weapons that jammed and it was all too easy to be killed too. Which is why AA is still considered to be a very good FPS and up there with the likes of CS.

And if the AI is poor, don't use AI - let the opposing forces be played by real humans. Imagine a middle east simulator where you could choose to be an insurgent (poorly armed, but can ambush, has local knowledge, can blend in with civilians), or a US soldier (heavily armed, but obvious and vulnerable to ambush). Both sides would have to get smart fast and you end up with a far more realistic simulation, and arguably something which is more instructive and "fun".

Who wants to join the losing side? (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014350)

The game is meant to be a recruitment tool. It shows you all the cool stuff you'll get to maintain as you kick down the door to the wrong person's house and thus create a brand new recruit for the enemy. It's going for the Wow, Neato effect rather than realistic gameplay.

If they built the game so that you could lose, that would make the game interesting and eclipse the whole point of the game.

It's like when they have airshows with the Blue Angels or open house day where civilians can stand on the deck of a carrier. It's not meant to give you a realistic idea of what goes on. They aren't going to show you guys swabbing the deck or the guys emptying the latrine. They show you the good stuff and when you're sold, they hit you with reality.

Re:Who wants to join the losing side? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014504)

Yvan Eht Nioj!

Sounds like it would be funner to play the bad guy (0, Troll)

arcite (661011) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014596)

Think about it!

Sniping would be obvious. Find perfect location to hide and comoflauge yourself. Learn how to utilize the environment.

Set traps and collect components to make different kinds of IEDs (like Alchemy in Morrowind)

Stealth and sneaking (classic Theif skills from D & D and others) -- could even use spells and mimic an illusionist!

Conversation, interrogation, misinformation, spying skills (think Bard without the harp)

roleplay elements abound - blend into local population, disguises, bartering, persuasion.

Team element - coordinate operations to complete objectives, missions (think quests)

Obviously the game would default to 'realistic' and 'no-reload' setting. ;)

Oh and make it moddable!

Who wants to risk his life for bad pay anyway? (0, Troll)

nietsch (112711) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014712)

Parent has a very good point: recruitment is not about giving a fair impression of a soldiers life, but to select the dumb and hopeless from the smarter folks. Really who would like, to get paid to be shot at, and have a whole hierachy to piss on you as well? If that game was about reality, they'd lock you up for a few hours to simulate the boredom, and then shove you into a hummer that gets blown up at the next corner. The last scene in my version would be their mothers cashing their son's life insurance and having a party at their funeral: So long sucker!
But too many knuckleheads would be able to connect the dots and give the recruitment officers a good beating, so their rosy version makes some sense from their perverted point of view.

Re:Who wants to join the losing side? (2, Interesting)

khakipuce (625944) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014918)

It might be a recruiting tool but setting unrealistic expectations is just daft. Army recruiting in the UK is all about doing exciting stuff and seeing the world, not about being shot at and enduring weeks of boardom punctuated by fighting for your life.

People then wonder why moral is low and troops and their parents are complaining about the support and conditions. If I tried to sell you something by misrepresenting it, I would be liable to prosecution, and you would get you money back.

"Can't" loose ? (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014356)

Finally, a game I'd be good at !

Re:"Can't" loose ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014438)

Finally, a game I'd be good at !

unlike spelling lose "loose"

Re:"Can't" loose ? (2, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014618)

Yeah, that word & I get along soo badly, not even my spellchecker will talk to it.

Realism? (1)

Nanpa (971527) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014358)

THIS JUST IN - RTS's declared unrealistic, workers are not allowed to unionise and organise random strikes

Abu Ghraib Hidden Level (5, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014366)

Where you get to familiarise yourself with the latest military technology including:
  • the digital camera;
  • the lead-acid car battery;
  • crocodile clips;
and, of course
  • the black hood.

Hey, Rummie! (1)

Scoria (264473) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014370)

I didn't know you made computer games! You're a man of many talents.

"proves" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014400)

You keep using that word...

What is failing power? (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014422)

I can see how technology can fail (as in "the gun doesn't shoot when I pull the trigger") and be jammed (as in "the gun doesn't shoot when I pull the trigger because someon did something to it"), but what does it mean for power to fail? Sounds fuzzy. And we don't like fuzzy, do we? ;-)

What kind of graphic card... (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014694)

Will properly simulate the sand and dust? I predict steep hardware reqs.

I played America's Army for a long time. (4, Informative)

heyguy (981995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014428)

Whichever side you're on, you're gonna be with the US Army. The opposing side will look like insurgents of some sort, even though they're in the US Army from their perspective. I always found it funny that the standard-issue M16s jammed semi-frequently, while the AK-47s that you can pick up from enemies never jammed (also offers the popular automatic-fire mode, as opposed to burst fire with the M16s). Also, they added AI in their most recent patch, and it's just horrible. The dudes are idiots, but some of them have impossible aim, so are impossible to kill. I don't know if the same company made the new game, but if they did, that would explain the terrible AI.

Re:I played America's Army for a long time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014690)

while the AK-47s that you can pick up from enemies never jammed

Apparently that's about right. Unlike precision instruments like an M16, the AK47 is probably the least sophisticated weapon on a battlefield. You can fill it with mud, sand, anything and it still works.

Re:I played America's Army for a long time. (1)

Calinous (985536) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014738)

The M16s really had a history of jamming. On the other side, the AK-47 were built to a much lower standard - while lacking accuracy (severely so, compared to the M16), they were extremely rugged, and jammed very infrequently. In order to know the real capabilities of the AK-47, I will tell you my experience (while in the army). In several shooting trainings, I've shot about 10 bullets (and other three in the final test). In all those examples, I've had one "double loading" incident - when there are two bullets wanting to enter the firing chamber. So, 1 in 10 jamming is very good :D (added information: I've shot a 1965, romanian built AK-47 modified - the one with plastic on it - some 5 years ago. The gun was 35 years old, fired low and right, but had good groupings at 100m. Seems it wasn't fired much)

Re:I played America's Army for a long time. (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014950)

I've shot a 1965, romanian built AK-47 modified - the one with plastic on it - some 5 years ago. The gun was 35 years old, fired low and right, but had good groupings at 100m. Seems it wasn't fired much
Interesting, because the "low and right" could be compensated with adjustable sights. Good groupings are a much more meaningful indicator of quality. So the Ak-47 seems not to be so bad after all.
According to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47 [wikipedia.org] , the chamber and barrel are chromium lined which should ensure low wear too.

Re:I played America's Army for a long time. (1)

Mjlner (609829) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014960)

"I always found it funny that the standard-issue M16s jammed semi-frequently, while the AK-47s that you can pick up from enemies never jammed"

Well, have you ever used an M16, notorious for it's tendency to jam, or an AK-47, famous for it's reliability? While the 5.56mm ammo of the M16 offers several advantages over the 7.62mm ammo of the AK-47, when it comes to reliability, the AK-47 wins hands down.

Get you happy to kill. (-1, Troll)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014434)

Most of this is to get you ready and happy about killing.
It takes some work to get most ppl killing.
Its not like the draft ie unhappy from day one or you have an officer frag count.
re technology could fail or be jammed - nobody will ever know or care - they just add in more interchangeable, disposable recruits.
Then you win or have a conference.

Re:Get you happy to kill. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014628)

First, you get happy about killing.
Then, you get really really scared as you approach the battlefield.
Then, you kill from fear.
Then, you get happy about being alive.
Then, you kill more.
Then, you get happy to kill.
Then, you get home.
Then, you get bored.
Then, you remember and dream, again and again, the look, the sounds, the smell.
Then, you feel more and more uneasy.
Then, you drown that unease in alcohol and drugs.
Then, you kick bad habits and start believing in patriotism.

It now makes sense, you are not a bad person at all and you didn't even made a compromise to survive. Actually, all that killing was heroism on your side and politicians who ordered it are honest-to-god alter parents who do only saint's deeds...

It's true it can't lose (5, Insightful)

Gablar (971731) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014442)

As shown by the shock and awe campaign in Iraq, the US armY has a clear advantage in conventional combat. I bet the US can win a war against any naval, air and and armored enemy army. The problem is that the enemy has evolved. Any one with half a brain will not go in a frontal war against the US, but there is an achilles heel, morale

Any nation wishing to carry out a succesful defense against a US invasion has to fight a guerrilla war. Forget about the tanks, forget about the planes, forget about the uniforms. Send your soldiers home with a very lose chain of command and a clear mission. Wage a war of oportunity. Attack only from crowded places, dress as a civilian. Attack the countrymen that colaborate with the US. The goal of your attacks is to make them as shocking and news worthy as possible. The can't do anythinga bout that. They cannot fight against the people without giant political fallout. Wait long enough and you will drive them out.

I think the US Army doctrine is obsolete. These are new times in warfare, where aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines mean nothing.

Re:It's true it can't lose (5, Insightful)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014594)

Your absolutely right but those tactics are nothing new. When the French were invaded by Hitler I think they had the resistance in place beforehand to cause as much damage to the occupying forces as they could.

Churchill had already put in place extensive plans to deal with a successful German invasion including chains of command, weapons dumps etc and had people trained specifically to kill Germans whenever the chance was offered and also anyone co-operating with them.

Even longer ago in Afghanistan when the British were there the opposing tribes simply played them along by on the one hand pretending to negotiate with them and getting what they could from them and on the other doing whatever they could to isolate the British forces disrupt their supply lines. They managed to get the British to agree not to fortify their encampments and later once the position was becoming increasingly untenable they offered safe passage back into India at which point they triggered what is, I think, still the worst Military defeat the British Army has ever received. I think there was only one survivor out of a force of 7,000 or so.

So, these tactics have a long pedigree and with a bit of luck often work which makes it all the more surprising when people tell you that the fact its happening now is such a shock and they hadn't expected anything like this to happen.

Re:It's true it can't lose (2, Insightful)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014736)

Don't forget American revolutionaries hiding behind trees and picking off British soldiers in bright red uniforms. You'd think the US would remember stuff like this, but history doesn't seem to be our best subject these days.

Re:It's true it can't lose (2, Interesting)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014902)

Yes, that's a good example. The UK was then a superpower and fielding one of the most powerful and advanced armies of the day. In a straight one on one shock and awe type engagement the US wouldn't have stood a chance but that option wasn't on the table for various reasons and the "terrorists" were able to take advantage of both the UK's engagements elsewhere and the public feeling of most British citizens to avoid unecessary slaughter and bloodshed on their American cousins.

Even if you have the most powerful military forces in the world there will always be areas which people can exploit to achieve their own ends and the bigger a player you are the more of those areas you will expose for your enemies to exploite.

True, Afghanistan just repeats (1)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014934)

Before the Russian "invasion" of Afghanistan (believe it or not they actually were invited in by a secular government to deal with Islamic extremists...except in those days we, the good guys, supported the extremists because at least they weren't Communists), embassy staff in London went round buying up old history books on the Afghan wars. A bookseller tried to tell the Foreign Office but they didn't want to know - John Le Carre is spot on about UK and US intelligence inadequacies.

So the role call so far is:

  • British underestimate Afghans, lose war.
  • Russians underestimate Afghans, lose war.
  • US and British underestimate Afghans, are still in process of losing war.
Who was it said the only thing we learn from history is that people do not learn from history>

Re:It's true it can't lose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014632)

I think the US Army doctrine is obsolete. These are new times in warfare, where aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines mean nothing.

I don't know about you, but I'd happily be an insurgent... oh yes, it wouldn't phase me at all knowing that a mad man sat behind the controls of some submersed object I couldn't see with the power of a Nuclear weapon... at least I can see the AirCraft carrier... pfft, it's pissy airplanes and projection bubble couldn't bother me in the least...

Of course, if I was really wanting to take control of a nation that might actually begin to bother me... but war is obviously not about taking control of a nation. It is about adapting and evolving...

I will concede that your idea has merit, fighting of this sort has always been a good idea choosing your own ground and all that, but I think it fails to see a larger picture, namely, the bigger amount of guns, the less likely you are to be invaded. Insurgency is a defensive method which, ultimately, works but requires a lot more time than would possibly be necessary.

Re:It's true it can't lose (1)

kaysan (972266) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014652)

Now with all that said, can you believe your multi-billion dollar, 250K men, fuel guzzling (one US heavy weapons division requires as much gasoline as an entire WWII field army) high tech annihilating force, is bogged down in Iraq due to approximately 5000 insurgents??

I think we're on the verge of redefining 'can't lose' here...

Re:It's true it can't lose (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014664)

What you're proposing is nothing new at all - it has been standard practice since before WWII to do just that to invading troops. Wear them down, harass them, attack them where possible, etc. The US army needs to wake up, apparently. :)

Re:It's true it can't lose (1)

Andy Gardner (850877) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014820)

As shown by the shock and awe campaign in Iraq, the US armY has a clear advantage in conventional combat. I bet the US can win a war against any naval, air and and armored enemy army.

Any army has a clear advantage if the enemy is ill equipped using outdated weaponry and surrenders on sight. When was the last time the US military fought a equivalently modern well equipped army? You're probably gonna have to go back 50 years at least.

Re:It's true it can't lose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014908)

You know, there are two sides of Geneva convention: Military will not kill civilians, provided civilians don't fight the military. It is not like civilians are protected by law no matter what they do. Fighting without uniforms and insignia is deemed perfidious or criminal. Today it is called terrorism, even if it is carried in the country under war.

In the past, before there was legal instrument of capitulation, *everything* was a fair game. Vae Victis! (Woe to the conquered). Wars were cruel, sometimes the whole populations were extincted.

Now, if the weaker side doesn't observe their part of agreement, stronger side may as well unleash hell on them. Sometimes it was even openly stated by occupation authorities (100 civilian hostages killed for every killed occupation forces troop, "only" 50 for a wounded one). In modern times, even less is sufficient: if you can't defeat an army (i.e. if they won't come to open and face you, to be properly annihilated), bomb their country's civilian infrastructure into rubbles. If they still don't comply, send "neutral negotiators" to promise them carpet bombing of residential areas on regular basis if they don't.

So, victory against guerrilla (or elusive regulars) is actually possible, but for the price of being guilty of genocide, as well as time and resources for hunting down and rounding up all that savages in the jungle or a prairie (where applicable). However, speaking of guilt, none is guilty until proven at least caught and locked up by a party interested in trying them, which is something that will not going to happen to any important US official or officer anytime soon. So, having most powerful army in the world opens up some really interesting and creative ways of successfully warring both strong and weak opponents. For one, your hands are totally untied by laws.

Re:It's true it can't lose (1)

hansonja (1006985) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014942)

These are new times in warfare

Well, actually, there's nothing new and revolutionary about this whole guerilla style of fighting. During WW2 Yugoslav partizans managed to liberate most of Yugoslavia by themselves using only guerilla tactics against German and Italian occupators and domestic collaborators. Actually, the same territory was problematic for conventional armies ever since the Roman times (Illyricum was never a Senate province), because of various technological levels of guerilla warfare.

Guerilla warfare is about morale as much as it is in unpredictable damage. You can predict in a conventional battle what kind of losses you might take. With that in mind, you can plan your moves. Guerilla means you might lose a shipment of food or fuel for some troops, a communications link, a truck or a single tank or anything else, and watches and guards have very little effect on such losses. An obvious economical calculation goes in favour of guerilla warfare: how much does an improvised piece of explosive cost in terms of a truckload of fuel? Any at-all-organized guerilla force can plant such a device with almost the freedom of location as that of an airstrike.

One might find a similarity with chaos theory here. Guerilla is about chaos, it resides in chaos and pulls towards chaos, although somewhat controlld chaos. Conventional warfare is about predictability and global strategies. If you're facing a guerilla threat, there's no point in looking at a global map and representing your army divisions as if playing Risk.

'ave fun!

sm

Escaping reality? (3, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014470)

This is an interesting one. So the US cannot lose? It makes me laugh! Let's remember that no one has ever escaped reality and the reality is that the US army, just like any other army is being "whipped" in Iraq!

Things are not going well over there at all. I used to hear my Commander In Chief say stuff like..."...stay the course...",..."...bring them on..."..."we'll get him (Bin Laden) dead or alive..."..."We'll prevail..." and the latest was "all major military operations are complete and the US has prevailed." Such rant is now gone.

Let's not forget that it was the same rant/rhetoric 30 years ago and because we could not escape reality, we had to face it and lost the war. Do not get me wrong. I support our troops. What I do not support is the bigotry and the "I know it all attitude" our leaders have.

If we had to fight them over there so that we do not fight them here...then let's put in mind the fact that we've lost close to 3,000 lives in this war. The number is about the same as those lost on 9/11.

Re:Escaping reality? (-1, Troll)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014586)

English is so obviously your second language it's blindingly apparent that you're just another self-righteous foreign fuck looking for any excuse to make one more generic and pedantic anti-American post on the internet.

Congratulations. You're now more worldly, and likely to be accepted into the Gay Nimrod Association of Anti-America.

Re:Escaping reality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014590)

It always pisses me off to hear people complain with this exact argument. Rather not think? Spew the same antiwar garbage that's been thrown at anyone involved with the military! Support our troops, do you? Then go ahead and get us all depressed about being over there and fighting. Go ahead and throw out the Big Scary Casualty Count, as if it's anything, anything close to Vietnam (which Iraq is apparently the new version of, according to you armchair generals) or either of the World Wars. People unwilling to accept conflict as an acceptable option will always be subjugated by those who are. Sit down.

Re:Escaping reality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014910)

yes conflict is an acceptable option, in self defence. but when you start a war against an enemy that not only never attacked you, but actually used to be your ally, receieving military assistance from you, it all looks rather dubious.
Im sure I'm not 'supporting our trops' because I'm not sticking to the blind pointless optimism that 'we are going to beat teh foreigners'.

Re:Escaping reality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014612)

that is hardly being "whipped". With the press' spin, I could see where you get that idea though. Whether it is now or 30 years ago, it wasn't a military problem, but lack of political will to do the job right.

Re:Escaping reality? (3, Insightful)

spellraiser (764337) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014614)

If we had to fight them over there so that we do not fight them here...then let's put in mind the fact that we've lost close to 3,000 lives in this war. The number is about the same as those lost on 9/11.

Excellent point. Those lives would not have been lost if the US had not invaded Iraq. And, of course, the invasion did absolutely nothing to deter or prevent terrorists from striking again on US soil. It was painfully obvious from the get-go that Iraq was not harboring members of Al Qaeda. Iraq did not have any WMDs to speak of either. The administration knew this beforehand, but chose to lie about it as they saw it as the best way to get the public behind them. It's fucking shameful that they were able to manipulate the public into supporting this travesty of an invasion. And no, I won't ask you to pardon my French, and yes, I know that this has been said time and again before, but it can't be said too often.

The US administration was able to get its fucking evil way by repeating lies again and again. The victims of this insanity deserve nothing less than to hear the truth, again, again, and again ...

Re:Escaping reality? (3, Interesting)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014668)

Its the old Salesmen vs. Engineer problem.

The Salesmen's job is to sell the product (i.e. the politician selling the idea of an easily won war)
The Engineer's job is to actually deliver the product (i.e. the army actually winning the said war)

No-one ever seems to listen to the engineers, it's always the salesman who the client communicates with; the half which has absolutely no experience of what is actually required to get the job done (or whether it is even technically possible).

To me, the parallels between the current Iraq war situation and your typical incompetently specified I.T. project are startling.

Just for the record (1)

remmelt (837671) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014696)

Can we also count the civilian deaths in Iraq? Thanks. (random Google search [google.com] )

Re:Escaping reality? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014720)

then let's put in mind the fact that we've lost close to 3,000 lives in this war. The number is about the same as those lost on 9/11.


Why the 9/11 reference? The two things should have nothing in common. You could have said that 3.000 was the number of people killed in Indonesia [bbc.co.uk]

To show more realistic numbers and respect the fact that Iraqi civilians are killed as well: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ [iraqbodycount.org]

As long as getting a blowjob is worse then lying with so many people are killed, there is something serious wrong.

the enemy doesn't learn (1)

giafly (926567) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014474)

Ironically this game is proof of that. See also War on Drugs [drugsense.org] , RIAA [shumans.com] , Oil Business [iags.org] .
Basically power corrupts both morality and the ability to learn.

Surely computer sims are about the Basics (1)

tezza (539307) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014544)

Can you model a roadside bomb?? Nope. Not in a every possible scenario

So concentrate on getting the basics correct. Some of those basics would be rote learned in idealised computer environment where replaying "Mistakes" is cheaper.

Why should the computer be 100%? If it was held to be the model of perfection, troops would learn to fight the computer and not the enemy.

Using a *Shooting game* to recruit to the army? (4, Funny)

caranha (680518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014548)

Regardless of how realistic or non-realistic the thing is, am I the only one boggled down by the fact that the US are using a *SHOOTING GAME* to motivate people to join the army?

Since when was war supposed to be fun and desirable?

"You see the game? Come to the army! Now you'll have the chance to shoot people, for REAL!" - ugh

Re:Using a *Shooting game* to recruit to the army? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014602)

Since when was war supposed to be fun and desirable?
It's not. It's using the game to teach basic tactical understanding and promote interest.

Re:Using a *Shooting game* to recruit to the army? (2, Interesting)

Ours (596171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014816)

Since when was war supposed to be fun and desirable?

Obviously you haven't played THIS game yet. I tried it yesterday, sounded cool, nice intro and then bam: it's all played on a 2D map with icons. Oh the briefing that lasts 8 minutes and contains 98% hardcore military jargon. Tons of fun.
Well, I guess hardcore war gamers will find it fun. I'd rather go back and play another run of Company of Heroes. But thanks to the American tax payer anyway, this is still tons better then the National Guard's crappy "PRISM Guard" FPS that tries to convince us into accepting big-brother style tech.

Wrong criticism. (3, Insightful)

kaleco (801384) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014554)

The game is propaganda, and should be criticised on different criteria than 'realism'.

Article (1)

Frozen Void (831218) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014556)

"For example, there's no consideration that military power or technology could fail or be jammed, she says. And the enemy doesn't learn, in contrast to a certain real-life conflict where the hallmark of insurgents is their ability to rapidly gain knowledge and evolve." to Mudkips?

Winning wars is easy, winning the peace is harder (4, Insightful)

fantomas (94850) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014570)

I'd expect the world's single superpower to win any military conflict and roll into any place they fancy, smashing the infrastructure of the country into the stone age. But that's just the easy bit. I think you guys will be judged on how you deal with the hard tasks after that.

already present in current games (1)

name*censored* (884880) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014576)

Sounds to me like this is describing already popular games on the market, such as counter strike. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the game, but I've always thought it odd that terrorists would have access to the same grade of weapons as counter-terrorists, and that counter-terrorist co-ordinators would deploy the same (plus or minus one) number of units as there are terrorists - you'd think they'd send two or three counter-terrorists in for every terrorists, not one-to-one. Also that the CTs should have to pay for their weapons, and are allowed to switch their gear. Also that the counter-terrorists don't have to answer to any chain of command, they just run around doing their own thing (a little different for clan games but otherwise). CounterStrike CT's seem more like militia or vigilante than CTs :\. Even IRL terrorists usually have a chain o' command, although not nearly as enforced/commonplace as disciplined CT's. Perhaps realism is sometimes worth being sacrificed to make the game more fun (sure in original topic they're actually using it to train troops, but I bet they got a whole lot of them in by saying that they could play some fun computer games :P)

April 1st... (1)

SilverwoodUG (853342) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014616)

First the satirical story about the MPAA, and now this. Is it already April 1st?

A few more suggestions... (1)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014650)

I think the game needs a little more than that to make it 'realistic'

Things like:
-300 points for team-kills, except Europeans.
-100 points for civilian kills, but some mild torture should give at least +10 but with the possibility of some bad press.
+50 points should be given for every gun you manage sell to the insurgents instead of using against them.

I'm sure this list could be extended...

Here's an Iraq's terrorists recruitment video (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014660)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-680347401 7054041740&hl=en [google.com]

Personally I find what the US military is trying to do shows of much more taste.

Re:Here's an Iraq's terrorists recruitment video (1)

Tusaki (252769) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014876)

talking about games, this video with footage from battlefield 2 was deemed "a terrorist recruitment video" by congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUWFb9_vP0 [youtube.com]

US Military's View of Technology (4, Insightful)

segedunum (883035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014662)

The US military has always had a very warped view regarding the benefits that technology in a war can give them. They seem to believe that they won't have to think (and want to get that over to their recruits!), or even see or touch their enemy, despite several high profile disasters and beatings - Vietnam being the big one (and Iraq today). Despite all the soul searching by Americans via movies and other avenues over Vietnam, everyone overlooks the inescapable conclusion - the US got absolutely ripped to pieces (saying they got beat just wouldn't be a fair reflection) because it thought it could beat an enemy by napalming everything from 30,000 feet. So it still remains today.

Judging from this game (and the disaster that is Iraq) their view of this hasn't changed, and it's something that they obviously want new recruits to believe as well. The US has the best technology in the world and it never loses!

Oh, and another thing. Does every weapon have to have a bloody acronym? It's not an IED. It's a bomb, or a roadside bomb or a mine (they're nothing new - really). That will do. I don't see any other military in the world that has ever needed to find acronyms for things that they don't like - maybe it seems less real that way ;-). I get the impression that some people like thinking up acronyms for things (hey, it looks as if you're doing something!) rather than actually concentrating on what they should be doing.

Re:US Military's View of Technology (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014840)

something that they obviously want new recruits to believe as well. The US has the best technology in the world and it never loses!

      Join the Roman Legions today. We have the best technology in the world, and never lose...

      Join the Grande Armee du Nord. We have the best technology in the world, and never lose...

      Join the German Wehrmacht today. We have the best technology in the world and never lose...

      Technology is not the only deciding factor when it comes to winning a war. History repeating itself yet again...

sounds like a game to me (4, Insightful)

coaxial (28297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014670)

From the blurb "For example, there's no consideration that military power or technology could fail or be jammed, she says. And the enemy doesn't learn, in contrast to a certain real-life conflict where the hallmark of insurgents is their ability to rapidly gain knowledge and evolve."

Well, first it's a recruiting tool. Of course the Americans are going to come out on top. (But, in all honesty, there really isn't a peer military any where in the world.) But more importantly, these criticisms with respect to the Army are ridiculous. There isn't a game made that has meets these criteria. Everyone can pickup as much ammo as they want without ever slowing down. Everyone can carry multiple full sized guns. Guns just miraculously appear whenever you change to them. (Aparently weapons are stored in some sort of pocket dimension like Optimus Prime's trailer.) Wounds don't do anything. You can be miracuously healed in an instance. Guns don't get jammed. People don't get tired. Guns are always accurate. Everyone can drive any vehicle, from snowmobiles to tanks. Oh and the tanks? They take a crew of one, and operate at full effectiveness right up until they explode.

Sure some games have some of these things, but it's rare when they do, and they rarely have them all. Why aren't games realistic? Because they're games. They're meant to be fun, and when compared to fantasy, reality frankly sucks.

demo version (1)

dune73 (130598) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014688)

It's obviously a demo version of the US Army.

Not every bug - errhh undocumented feature - is present in a demo version.

Re:demo version (1)

Shard013 (530636) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014740)

That is why you edit the documentation to make the bugs into real documented features!

battlefront.com (1)

DingerX (847589) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014778)

Er, the Wired editors do realize that the website in question is run by a competing sim publisher, with rather more interesting products, don't they?

The US Army really can't lose... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17014796)

Armies conquer territory, not people. They're also particularly blunt instruments of foreign policy. These tenets have been proved repeatedly for at least 2000 years, if not for all of recorded history. Unless the US invades Russia or China, or invades somebody who's WMD armed, they can't lose a war.

However, they'll lose the peace unless there's a common frame of reference from which to rebuild. Different tools and approaches are required for winning the peace, if it's even possible to do so.

America's Army (2, Interesting)

apharmdq (219181) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014822)

Of all the multiplayer FPSs I've found out there, America's Army is the only one I really stick to and play regularly. Despite it's flaws, (and it's hardly a perfectly designed game) it encourages strategic gameplay and teamwork. Perhaps it's because I suck at fast-twitch FPSs, but the idea of actually outthinking your opponents really appeals to me. Quite simply, the game is fun.

Now I know the game is propaganda for the US Army and any ideals it holds, but I haven't joined the forces yet, nor do I ever plan to. The game doesn't get too in-your-face about it, and in all honesty, I'd rather put up with a bit of propaganda as opposed to the in-game advertising that's starting to fill most modern games. At least it fits the context of the game and keeps me immersed.

At very least, America's Army is fun, and that's a lot more than can be said for many of the other shooters out there.

As for this new game in the works, well, a lot of the fun in AA comes from the challenge of your limitations. If you remove those limitations, it would make the game a bit too easy to be fun, and that's what I see this as. With futuristic weapons and tech, you can't follow real-world rules because you don't know what those rules will be, and thus you lose some of the limitations out there. (And perhaps make up unnecessary ones.) So while I find this development interesting, I'm going to wait and see what comes of it.

Real life lesson (4, Insightful)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014848)

Remember Vietnam. An army can win almost all the battles it is engaged in and still lose a war for non-tactical reasons.
American army technical superiority is great when they need to go somewhere, do the job and get away quickly or simply sterilize an area from the stratosphere, but when they have to stay somewhere, they suffer from their low headcount.

it is just recruitment tool.. nothing else (2, Interesting)

phelix_da_kat (714601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17014898)

Well, i guess the user specs were: make it like a game but better than Amercia's Army and a FPS.

In the end, it is a recuitment tool to lure all those console kids to join, with the promise of "cool weapons".

Its aimed (no pun intended) at the kids.. i hope there is not an adult who would make a career decision based on a game...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?