Serious Gaming Contribution to Concept Development and Experimentation within the French Battlelab

1. Serious Gaming Contribution to Concept Development and Experimentation within the French Battlelab pascal.cantot@dga.defense.gouv.fr jerome.martinet@dga.defense.gouv.fr

2. What is a Battlelab? Example: French LTO • LTO is the French MoD Battlelab • Supports analysis studies atcapability and SoS levelsdealt through 6 axes :doctrines, organization, equipment, personnel, training & sustainment • Main issues to be addressed through LTO: • Global requirements for SoS and capabilities  SoS tool • Large number of combinations for architectural solutions • Large number of issues at stake and stakeholders • Complexity of systems and interfaces between systems and partners • Importance of collaborative work and share of assets:government–industry, technical–operational, military–civilian, French–Allied… • LTO is not (or not only) a set of technical resourcesbut rather a method to solve complex problems

3. LTO: from concept to capabilities

4. Services from LTO • Shared with industry • Can interoperate with other BL • Services: • Brainstorming animation (LTG)(concept exploration, scenario design…) • Board games, role playing games • Architecture modelling • Simulation architecture consulting • Concept illustrations through simulation or « serious games »(VBS2, VR Forces…) • Support to design of analysis simulation • Communication network for experimentations • Technical support to experimentations(videoconferences, architecture, debriefing…)

5. PHOENIX 2008 Experimentation • The goal is to evaluate new operational NCW capabilities to be used in a task force • Stakeholder’s contributions to field experimentation • Battlelabing facility(collaborative work…) • Telecommunications • Military equipments and humans • Ergonomic analysis (experts, tools…) • Prototypes to be evaluated:UAV, sensors… • Simulation tools • …

6. Main objectives for the XP • Indirect fire management in manoeuvre for French Army • Evaluate 2 new tools for Unit Commanders (=Captain) : • Manoeuvre Management Cell (CCM) • Specialized Surveillance Cell (CSS) – RETEX Ph’07 • Illustrate new capabilities or optimize existing capabilities : • Beyond sight firing (TAVD) and short loop close support • Exploit sensor images for Captain’s decision making • Coordinate collective actions (firing, moving…) • Experiment at SGTIA level (combined tactical group, ~200 men)with additional mortar, missile and enhanced TAVD capacity • How to support Army Unit Commander in the future ? •  Network •  Sensors •  Fire support

7. LTO Philosophy was applied • Mixed team(Industry – Army – DGA) • Each one contributes • Analyze and meet all participants’ expectations  win-win relationship • Federate individual know-how • Methods: several steps • Common experimentation design • Fielding of the experimentation • Results analysis and lessons learnt

8. Experimentation design • Use of collaborative work laboratory : LTG • Technical and operational objectives for the XP • Scenarios that include these objectives • Metrics • Simulation • 3D Terrain Digitalization • Setting up the environmentto help finalize scenarios • System engineering tool: MEGA • Modelling ofcommunication streams • Design of networks

9. Experimentation fielding • Setting up “spies”: MEEFISTO • Network communications • Permanent logging of any actionor message from operators(CSS and CCM) • Continuous ergonomic evaluation: • An ergonomist behind every operator • Daily debriefing (technical and operational) • Stimulation by injecting synthetic images: • Replacement for faulty fielded sensors,in real time Combination of existing equipment from Legion Étrangère and demonstrators

10. Concepts assessment • Immediate evaluation: • Equipments: needs for evolutions of existing equipments • Doctrine: repartition of functions, processes • Experimentation: logistics, methods, simulation integration • Later, after some work: • Lessons learntfor each equipment from industry • Equipment and doctrinal benefits • Analysis of remaining issues

11. What is a Serious Game ? • « Serious » Exploitation of technologiesused in video games • Word coined by video games companiesto conquer new markets: Army education…

12. Several ways of exploitinggaming technologies : Reuse of a technology(e.g.: HBR engine…) Develop a video game(e.g.: America’s Army…) Adapt a video game to “serious uses”(e.g.: use of Flight Simulator in some pilot school) Market a video game design environment(e.g.: VBS2) Let’s take an example use of VBS2 to support an experimentation VBS 2

13. Preparation phase • For XP staff: • Scenarios sketch up for iterative improvementsAn animation is easier to understandthan a matrix or a UML diagram to illustratethe scenarios • For Army: • Mission rehearsalReplay the scenarios in such a waythat it is very similar to real XP

14. Actors stimulated by virtual images inputs: Images from a virtual UAV camerainjected in the actual C3I Graphical representation of enemies : To simulate detection and enemies positions Virtual Real Implementation and execution phases

15. After Action Review • Illustrate the concepts of the experimentationas they were fielded • Helps debriefing • Lessons-learned movie

16. Some thoughts about VBS2 and SG (1) • Usability: • Simulations are immersive and realistic(drawback: people tend to refine details too far) • Models for asymmetric warfare and terrorism are available off-the-shelf • But questions about models validity  validation is to be made • Limitations in human behaviour model  has to be supported by more sophisticated CGFs • Doctrine is standard: problems with differences between French and US doctrine (undocumented, this issue raises at runtime…) • Cost: • Low cost : not only for licences, but also for training (ease of use)Starting from zero knowledge in VBS2, one month for a young engineer to model Mourmelon training camp with a satisfying level of details and fidelity • Support: • Good technical support • But documentation is still poor  extensive expertise required on various domains • Possible use of community

17. Some thoughts about VBS2 and SG (2) • Openness: • Interoperability is rather good (API, HLA, DIS),even if VBS2 is not HLA 1516-compliant(but we had a workaround thanks to our simulation infrastructure) • Output formats are proprietary, input (source) data are reusable,but globally it’s difficult to reuse models • Users’ point of view: • Fantastic tools to support collaborative work in an integrated team • Derived from video games  “nice and cool” to use  motivationwhich is very important to foster collaboration among stakeholders • Quickly adopted by operational people (but some were already familiar with Serious Games: Operation French Point...) • But mistrust from some engineers whose primary consideration is technical value (vs. Operational value) • Obvious potential for training and education(e.g. pre-deployment training…  See what CAN, UK, USA do)

18. Conclusion • VBS2 is a very efficient, professional tool,but not a magic wand  not for all purposes • We must not be afraid of Serious Games,but need to be aware of their limitations • Serious Games must be evaluated as any tool,keeping in mind that the (low) licence price tag is only a small part of the required investment • Join or develop a user community to share competences, models…Their efficiency depends heavily on developments made by users • Most SG are tactical, we lack higher-level SG (MOSBE?) • As for France: • We will continue to use and develop VBS2 • VBS2 will be completed by more robust CGFs (VR Forces, Sword)and integrated to French defence simulation environments • In 2009/2010 : 3 experimentations using VBS2 • We expect to find new products to extend the scope of serious games(e.g. underwater warfare), but it will required resources…