Is Army's $18 Million Training Game a Waste of Tax $$$ ???
Is Army's $18 Million Training Game a Waste of Tax $$$ ???
January 8, 2009
In November, GamePolitics reported on Game After Ambush, a combat training simulator being developed by the U.S. Army, to the tune of $17.7 million dollars.
However, David Sheets of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wonders whether the expense of creating the game as well as spending additional millions to deploy it to Army bases around the globe isn't a giant tax boondoggle:
In this time of penny-pinching, it makes sense that even the U.S. Army would try saving money everywhere except on the things directly affecting our national security.
Example: More money spent on body armor for our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq is good; more money spent on costly toys like video game simulators might not be so good... Not only that, two of the three software firms contracted to do the work are foreign...
That [money] could buy a whole lot of other things — I’m guessing about 88,000 Xbox 360s or 44,000 PlayStation 3s, for example. (Besides, Sony’s PS3 division could really use the business right now...)Why not just save a little money and buy the game consoles instead? I mean, hasn’t anyone in the Army ever heard of “Call of Duty”?
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 07/04/09 at 09:24pm
PHX Corp: For those that want to know what i watching it's called man vs cartoon(a.k.a fixing Wile E. coyote's Mistakes one trap at a time by EMERTEC)
PHX Corp: For those that want to know what i watching it's called man vs cartoon(a.k.a fixing Wile E. coyote's Mistakes one trap at a time by EMERTEC)
Posted 07/04/09 at 08:20pm
GoodRobotUs: Went out for my Mum's 65th Birthday, which is the only relevance 4/7 has in the UK for me ;)
GoodRobotUs: Went out for my Mum's 65th Birthday, which is the only relevance 4/7 has in the UK for me ;)
Posted 07/04/09 at 08:18pm
Andrew Eisen: Beach + fireworks + root beer + strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, whipped topping, and pound cake = my Fourth of July!
Andrew Eisen: Beach + fireworks + root beer + strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, whipped topping, and pound cake = my Fourth of July!
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:58pm
GoodRobotUs: Which seems to be the only point Jack proved, that some people find some games offensive. i.e. Nothing.
GoodRobotUs: Which seems to be the only point Jack proved, that some people find some games offensive. i.e. Nothing.
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:57pm
GoodRobotUs: The discussion was supposed to be whether games were dangerous not 'Do you find some games offensive'...
GoodRobotUs: The discussion was supposed to be whether games were dangerous not 'Do you find some games offensive'...
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:55pm
GoodRobotUs: Some agreed, some didn't, but it was their choice to make, not the governments.
GoodRobotUs: Some agreed, some didn't, but it was their choice to make, not the governments.
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:55pm
GoodRobotUs: By asking the audience their opinion, he more or less proved that it's a matter of personal choice
GoodRobotUs: By asking the audience their opinion, he more or less proved that it's a matter of personal choice
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:55pm
GoodRobotUs: Meh, he ended proving Mark's point for him
GoodRobotUs: Meh, he ended proving Mark's point for him
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:26pm
Erik: Jack if you are reading this you are a LIAR. There is no legal weight to the MPAA's ratings.
Erik: Jack if you are reading this you are a LIAR. There is no legal weight to the MPAA's ratings.
Posted 07/04/09 at 07:24pm
JDKJ: I still think my buddy the midget who rides a unicycle backwards while juggling four bowling pins would have been a much bigger hit with that crowd. And he can make up statistics and misinterpret studies, too.
JDKJ: I still think my buddy the midget who rides a unicycle backwards while juggling four bowling pins would have been a much bigger hit with that crowd. And he can make up statistics and misinterpret studies, too.
Posted 07/04/09 at 06:33pm
Alyric: Of course, Mark falls into the common trap about Columbine, which had nothing to do with bullying, etc. See: http://slate.msn.com/id/2099203/?GT1=3256 for a more thorough explanation.
Alyric: Of course, Mark falls into the common trap about Columbine, which had nothing to do with bullying, etc. See: http://slate.msn.com/id/2099203/?GT1=3256 for a more thorough explanation.
Posted 07/04/09 at 06:32pm
PHX Corp: Read this http://www.destructoid.com/sgc-09-liveblogging-the-jack-thompson-debate-138502.phtml#ext
PHX Corp: Read this http://www.destructoid.com/sgc-09-liveblogging-the-jack-thompson-debate-138502.phtml#ext
Posted 07/04/09 at 05:54pm
PHX Corp: JT is afraid of such ban then advocates it That's what i call a total Hypocrite
PHX Corp: JT is afraid of such ban then advocates it That's what i call a total Hypocrite
Posted 07/04/09 at 05:50pm
PHX Corp: AE: JT is a -Bleeping- Jackass
PHX Corp: AE: JT is a -Bleeping- Jackass
Posted 07/04/09 at 05:07pm
Andrew Eisen: JT "knew it would be a good audience." Not what he said on Tuesday.
Andrew Eisen: JT "knew it would be a good audience." Not what he said on Tuesday.
Posted 07/04/09 at 05:01pm
Andrew Eisen: VG cause violent behavior. VG companies influence behavior to get sales. Yeah, that makes sense. (To be fair, the Twitter feed makes deciphering JT's point pretty tough.)
Andrew Eisen: VG cause violent behavior. VG companies influence behavior to get sales. Yeah, that makes sense. (To be fair, the Twitter feed makes deciphering JT's point pretty tough.)
Posted 07/04/09 at 04:52pm
Andrew Eisen: Yes, it's been proposed but as far as I know it has not been passed. Big difference.
Andrew Eisen: Yes, it's been proposed but as far as I know it has not been passed. Big difference.
Posted 07/04/09 at 04:50pm
Cheater87: http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/formats/xbox360/all-violent-video-games-be-banned-in-germany-$1301757.htm
Cheater87: http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/formats/xbox360/all-violent-video-games-be-banned-in-germany-$1301757.htm
Posted 07/04/09 at 04:49pm
Andrew Eisen: Far as I know, Germany has not banned all violent video games.
Andrew Eisen: Far as I know, Germany has not banned all violent video games.
Posted 07/04/09 at 04:44pm
Cheater87: Jack wants the US to follow Germany's total video game ban.
Cheater87: Jack wants the US to follow Germany's total video game ban.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Here's an excerpt of the comment I left on his site :
" It's an interesting point of view, but keep in mind that there are HUGE differences (in hardware AND software) between home video games such as "Call of Duty" and military simulators. By the way, it may be good to spend money on things that make soldiers better prepared to war (which commercial video games can't do at all, but military simulators might be able to do)."
Although he seems to assimilate home video games and military simulators (which I disagree with), I'm glad that he doesn't use his objections as a pretext to make derogatory comments on video games. Hey, he even proposes to use the money to buy consoles !
I'd usually say yes but I can see how a training game could be benefitial to having an effective military. So I'll say maybe because I havn't gone through the training, im not in the military and I really have no way of knowing how effective it is. I do think that games can be effective in a learning and training environment so if done properly I'm confident that their goals can be accomplished. So yea... maybe but I guess it depends on proper development and use.
There are so many other things the government could stop doing to save money. Its actually sad that this 18million dollar instance doesn't even show up on my radar. In the eyes of the United States Government $18million dollars is chump change. If we stopped bailing out failing companies and stopped maintaining our empire abroad then we could save trillions annually. Until then I have a hard time giving the Army a hard time for making a training game.
A flight simulator program of manning a B-52 is vastly less expensive than manning a real one. Conversly, tactical simulations and stratagies are less expensive than "war games" for the commanders, majors, or anyone else.
Not that you should replace simulations with the real thing, there is a difference from playing the combat sim from Full Spectrum Warrior, to the actual chaos of a firefight. But, if the majors, and captions wish to refine their tactical manuvers without constantly organizing the troops to do so, this is a better alternative.
It is not a waste of tax payer dollars, it's infact saving tax money.
edit: Programs also show liable tactical errors more clearly since you can record the whole the whole procedure, and go back to it looking at every aspect.
Good points. I agree.
I was reading these comments hoping someone would say this bit.
Such projects save significant amounts of cash, but that is only part of it.
Think about all the cooridnation that goes into a wargame.. not to mention requiring special facilities which then and up being contended for since you can only build so many mock villages. You have to ship people to them, make sure they don't eat into the next unit's time, put them up in barraks for the weeks, etc.
With tactical simulators... ship out some laptops (which also have other uses when not running simulators) and any unit with some down time can put in a few hours of training. Useful stuff.
Agree with previous posters. Military simulator =/= video game. So no, I don't have a problem with it. Also, as I understand it, the military gets a budget every year and then spends it, so it's not like you're suddenly going to see a bunch of new taxes to pay for this. It has technically already been "paid" for.
Now the video game recruitment centers on the other hand are probably a waste of the military's budget.
Tea and cake or death! Tea and cake or death! Little Red Cook-book! Little Red Cook-book!
Ya, the army is not making these games for entertainment but as training simulators that are meant better reflect real world conditions... this goes beyond the extent of what games like Call of Duty do. If the military was just looking for entertainment then i would think they would be smart enough to just get game consoles, but the army isn't just looking for games, they are looking for military simulators. The Army wants to train their soldiers with these games, not entertain them (grant it though, that's not to say a military simulator could not be entertaining it's own right)
I think Op Flash is based on a real mil sim. That is fun.
Real war however - not so much.
-- Add a marker to the start of your signature.
Other way around actually.
Actually, it costs more than 18 million a year to run ftx's, MILES scenarios, and all the other training that gets done, as well as injuring and killing a few people every year. This is, in fact, cost effective if its used.
Lets see a game that allows whoever is in charge of the training session to adjust all weather conditions, equipment training and number of opposing forces, allows for pretty much any type of situation you could ever find on the battle field, has zero risk of injuring the troops being trained. Do they actually think that isn't worth the money. There is no amount of training that can ever be as effective as actual combat and this game is simply another attempt at getting closer to that while reducing the risk.
"I mean, hasn’t anyone in the Army ever heard of “Call of Duty”?"
They could save even more money by using The History Channel's Battle for the Pacific.
Millions of dollars? That's some good military bloat, especially on something that's not going to see an immediate return on the investment. Does the military just not know where the money spent to make video games goes?
"Example: More money spent on body armor for our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq is good; more money spent on costly toys like video game simulators might not be so good... Not only that, two of the three software firms contracted to do the work are foreign..."
This is the stupidest statement I think I've ever read; how is 1/4" - 1/2" kevlar plate suppose to stop the several hundred pounds of explosives placed in IED's? These IED's can blow Styker's onto their sides when they detonate, no chicken shit body armor is going to save these soldiers.
Good point about the IEDs however they do still get shot at O.o back in '05 an army medic was shot in the chest and survived due to his vest. They also ended up catching the sniper and confiscated his footage and the medic that was shot in the chest later treated the injured sniper.
http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/video/user_sniper/
without that vest, he'd not have fared so well i think.
------------------------------------
I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.
I've seen a documentary on this, but you're focusing too closely on the individaul. Body armor may have save this medic, but snipers are not the number 1 cause of fatalities among soldiers. Lets start top down, and when we get to snipers/rifle fire being the first and foremost killer of men we can decide how to proceed.
The dragon skin and other advance armor may not be able to protect against direct attacks from things like IEDs (what the hell does, even training would become outdated once they realize their methods quit working), but they do protect quiet well from the shrapnel, high powered rifles, and indirect attacks.
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
I agree with the basics of what you're saying but i'm not going to agree we should just scrap furthering research in vests till we take care of the bombs. If advances to the vest are available then we should take that opportunity. You never know when an advance in one field may yield advances in others. Vests have also saved more than just 1 medics life, they do an aweful lot that you never hear about.
------------------------------------
I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.
They aren't suggesting that they invest the saved money into ballistic protection research, but in the purchase of already available armour.
Which is also a good idea. In this day and age there shouldn't be a question if it should be bought or not. Families of soldiers that didn't have armor actually ponied up the cash to buy some themselves for their loved ones.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26-body-armor_x.htm
They may not be effective against bombs but i agree it shouldn't be questioned if body armor should be available. If is was fighting over there, I'd be damned of the enemy offs me with a single shot to the chest when I could have had armor to protect me.
------------------------------------
I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.
The military is under no obligation to protect its soldiers lives, its just in their best interest not to get them all killed at once. Their business is death, the enemy soldiers and their own.
This irrational notion that soldiers shouldn't die in war is out of control; only thing that matters is the quality of their death (i.e. was it worth that which was gained).
I'm not sure whether that video was more creepy, or stupid. Guy pulls the trigger, the medic drops, one of the asshats starts praising Allah despite the fact the very enemy they thought they killed stands right back up and looks around like "wtf?"
These snipers aren't exactly tactical geniuses...
You are however a magnificant racist, aren't you?
Maybe. But I'd be saying the same if they were Christian. Actually it does sound funnier to imagine the same situation, only the sniper and spotter shouting "praise Jesus" despite their intended target getting back up and looking around.
EDIT: I also stand by my use of the word asshat regardless of ethnic origin.
What people like David Sheets don't understand is that this is money that's already been spent. Announcements like this are done after the fact. In fact, if he even bothered to actually read the announcement he would have notice that roughly 10 of the 17 mil had already been used. This is something that's been in the works for the past couple years.
In all honesty, it is a waste of money. In 10 years or so, I suspect technology will be advance/cheap enough that it will be worth investing it, but until then, that money would be better put in making dragon skin bullet proof military vests cheaper to make, and supplying more soldiers with them, as well are other protection and technology for soldiers in action.
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
I know that no one who's never been in the military will understand this, but there's a point where armor becomes too cumbersome and affects combat performance. We've already hit it. Dragon Skin level 5 is heavy as hell on its own, but then add all the other pouches or LBE/LBVs that people wear over or on it and you've got body armor that is sweltering hot. Plus, it doesn't matter that level 3 can stop 9mm rounds. I have old original desert storm body armor that still does that, and it needs new plates. The problem is, even with level five armor, ridiculously heavy as it is, it can't stop the force from the bullet. You'll just have internal damage instead of a hole, which is just as bad.
When they started putting those ridiculous neck protectors and shoulder protectors on Interceptors, that's when we went too far.
Sure, there's some great stuff we could invest in. Bringing back the old PT body armor used by so many special forces units is one of the good ideas. Wrapping people in heavy armor that'll just let them be hammered to death, producing ridiculous technology like the 'LAND WARRIOR' system, and all this other crap is a waste of time.
All in all, this is the best way to spend this money right now. That and maybe buying more LMT uppers in 6.8 SPC.
"I know that no one who's never been in the military will understand this, but there's a point where armor becomes too cumbersome and affects combat performance. We've already hit it. Dragon Skin level 5 is heavy as hell on its own, but then add all the other pouches or LBE/LBVs that people wear over or on it and you've got body armor that is sweltering hot. Plus, it doesn't matter that level 3 can stop 9mm rounds. I have old original desert storm body armor that still does that, and it needs new plates. The problem is, even with level five armor, ridiculously heavy as it is, it can't stop the force from the bullet. You'll just have internal damage instead of a hole, which is just as bad."
You know something about conservation of momentum I don't Austin? Don't answer that, we all know the answer is no, so lets move on. To stop a high velocity projectile, the impacted object will need to resist the change from maximum momentum to absence of momentum. The only reason vehicles don't flop around when they are shot with rifle fire is because of mass. Mass is the only thing that you can control in this situation, everything else is out of the control of the designers. Heavier armors => greater mass => reduced reactionary forces.
And no, internal bruising and bleeding is not as bad as a hole in your body. For as painful as internal injuries are, you have absolutely no risk of developing infections. No exposure to the air, dirt or the filthy tack you're wearing means you are don't going to be laided up with a fever in the following days.
"When they started putting those ridiculous neck protectors and shoulder protectors on Interceptors, that's when we went too far. "
One of the bodies major arteries flows very close to the skin in the neck, protecting it from sharpnel is common sense. Shoulder and upper arm wounds prevent soldiers from operating their weapons, and makes them a liability, another commonsense place to protect yourself.
"Sure, there's some great stuff we could invest in. Bringing back the old PT body armor used by so many special forces units is one of the good ideas. Wrapping people in heavy armor that'll just let them be hammered to death, producing ridiculous technology like the 'LAND WARRIOR' system, and all this other crap is a waste of time."
Because the half native Austin Lewis knows more about war than the DoD right? Sit down before you hurt yourself, space cadet.
Greater mass does equal reduced reactionary forces, but for it to be enough to actually absorb the power of any real round (7.62's of any kind, 5.45, all the other crazy rounds you can find in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran) it would need to be heavier than is convenient to carry into combat.
There's a major artery in the neck? NO WAY! Surely, being able to turn your neck fast enough to see the person shooting at you is better defense for your neck than having a thin piece of body armor that won't stop anything but .22s. Those shoulder protectors also make it much harder to move your arm to raise a rifle, and for some people, harder to steady it. That's why they're so hated by most people in the military.
Do you even know what LAND WARRIOR was? No? Then I'd shut the fuck up. If you look at the DoD, it's done nothing but suck since the end of the Battle for Mogadishu. Cutting funds to units worth keeping, forcing crappy rifles into the hands of snipers (PROTIP: One hit one kill is bullshit. The modern sniper needs to be able to kill an entire group at once, not have to slowly pull the bolt on their M40/M24), denying funds to units for things like optics (you'd think that a sniper would get an allowance for a Nightforce or Leupold scope, but no, they often don't), and overall fielding equipment and tactics that were great 2 wars ago but not so great now. Although we have one of the best funded militaries in the world, we suffer from poor use of money, wasting it on developing rifles then picking none of them (Look, I love the Colt SOPMOD. I love the M14. I still own multiples of both. But the XM8, the SCAR, the HK 416, they all kicked the shit out of it in testing, and we wasted millions of dollars testing them to decide we didn't want any, even though the SCAR is just like any AR15 in the world, a child can use the XM8, and the HK 416 IS THE SAME AS THE COLT with a gas piston) developing technology that is idiotic (LAND WARRIOR), and forcing crappy rifles into the hands of our troops.
Of course, I seem to recall you hoping that our troops would die not more than a week or two ago.
At one time, didn't the DoD have an ideology regarding the use of the smaller caliber rounds? The objective being to not kill enemy outright, but to wound them. The idea was that if you wound one enemy it takes one or two out of the fight to drag the wounded off and treat them. If you had killed them outright then you took only one opponent out of the fight.
That sounds flawed all the hell to me... Or maybe I just read that in bad novel.
The reason behind the continuing use of the 5.56 instead of adopting something like the 6.8SPC or a 7.62 round of some sort is that the 5.56 is more manageable than a 7.62 (or a 6.8, but honestly I can barely tell the difference between the two on a range). I've not heard that idea (the whole wounding so two people drag) but that reasoning sounds like something from the tail end of Operation Gothic Serpent. Of course, Operators in conflicts like Somalia found themselves annoyed with the 5.56 round's armor piercing qualities because people in 3rd world countries don't wear a lot of body armor, so the round would just pass through a body and do relatively little damage. I recall a D-boy shooting a Somali something like 7 times through the chest, and every time this man turned to find a new target, he'd find the same Somali standing again.
In these newest wars, we find ourselves with the same problems. Rounds designed to pierce armor aren't terribly effective against people who don't wear it; a return to a bigger round with a lead (or phosphorous) tip would be a great way to make our 5.56's a little more effective.
I believe the reason bullets like that are not used is because of the Hague Convention of 1899. From what I know of the ballistics of 5.56 nato if he was still fighting after being hit by 1 torso shot it could only mean he is one tough bastard. Vietnam soldiers didn't care to much about getting hit with an ak, bullet just goes right through, but an m16 the bullet tumbles and shatters leaving a lot more damage than an ak would.
Its common considered inhumane to use weapons that maim soldiers instead of killing them outright. This is why there is serious pressure on nations to stop using landmines; aside from the civilian impacts, of course.
All Hague did was try to outlaw hollow points and bombing from the skies (both abandoned since then). After the 1899 convention, we adopted the Springfield 1903, a 30.06 caliber rifle with a bullet much larger and far more powerful than the 5.56 we use today
You have a misconception on bullets. 1) there's not just 1 bullet for each caliber; there's different manufacturers, suppliers, etc. The US Issue 5.56 isn't any more likely to shatter than a 7.62; in fact, given that many of the 7.62 rounds in the middle east and Africa are 50 years old, it's more likely the 7.62 would shatter (many of these rounds have not been kept well.). Bullets made from weaker materials or softer (lead, for example) are more likely to shatter or spread and stay in the body than the average round (made from copper, brass, or any number of other metals). The M16 rounds used now on a limited basis (NATO5.56 Mk 262) are a bit more likely to fracture than others, but most of those rounds are in the hands of SF or sharpshooters equipped with a Mk 12 SPR. One of the common rounds used by the US is the 5.56 M855, a green tipped round made for piercing armor. It doesn't fragment well unless it hits armor.
I am sorry but this kind of training is worth while to keep I dunno...deaths in the field down that are cused by mis comunicationa nd lack of training....mew thinks soemone dose not like soliders comming back alive....
Shearing/Downloading will never be a mainstream market.
Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes
of transportation of story and thought, to take them from
society and you create a society of children and nannys
Doesn't each missile and laser-guided bomb cost about this much?
>video game simulators
...is that where you pretend to play a videogame? ;D
/b
You are on the screen, so are some clouds, bushes, blocks, and a Goomba. The Goomba is slowly advancing toward you. Choices include LEFT, RIGHT, UP, DOWN, A, B, START, and SELECT.
>
wait, that was too predictable. here's another example:
You are at the Title Screen. Choices include 1PLAYER, 2PLAYER, and OPTIONS.
>
岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」
Hrm... I press the reset button?
I knew I forgot something...
You press the RESET BUTTON. The screen garbles up, then freezes. Choices are to use the POWER SWITCH
>use power switch
The screen goes into power-saver mode, due to not receiving a signal. Choices are to use the videogame console's POWER SWITCH.
>
岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」
Aw, I was beaten to it.
Anyone who thinks Call of Duty (or any other commercial game except for perhaps Full Spectrum Warrior - which was originally developed for the military) would be of any use as a military grade simulator needs a reality check. Games are very poor simulations of real combat - they teach the wrong lessons, they often reward actions that are suicidal in a real world situation and they fail to pose any sort of realistic simulation. In short, using a game instead of a simulator will get soldiers killed.
Military personnel need to learn specific lessons that do not merge well with gameplay.
Hello All,
All this Month the Pentagon Tv channel at www.pentagonchannel.mil in their daily news brief show called "Around The Services". Is showcasing segments about military simulator technology. Specifically about a trade show for the military that occurred last month in Orlando Florida.
Besides the typically kiosk of a computer simulator. There simulators consist of a Humvee cabin that rolls over. For soliders on how to egress (bail out) of the vehicle safely during a roll over. (be it IED or otherwise) The Orlando military simulation trade show also depicted a tent filled with various injured medical treatment manequins. On how field medics could practice as a training aid.
I do remember them stating in the past each branch of the miltary would buy there own military simulators. Without sharing it with any other of the armed forces. But now that philosophy has changed on how best they can share such simulator training technology with all the armed service branches.
Besides the military no matter the nation always has to procure new technology / methodologies. Or they'll become obselete as a stragetic force where ever that may be.
For that much money spent, they should have been able to develop it completely in house.
I think this is more along the lines of the Police 'Shoot / Don't Shoot' simulators. The Old SWAT Games were good simulators in that respect, especially since they were developed by the LAPD's former Chief of Police and creator of their SWAT Teams.
Oh yeah. Daryl F. Gates or something like that. I hate that they ruined the incredible Police Quest series to make that crappy SWAT series. I want a PQ revival.
But yeah, 18m isn't much at all to make a realistic combat simulator. Games can take up to five times that much to make. With all the extreme inflation in prices the government spends on things like bombs, 18m doesn't seem like that high of a number for the potential a proper combat simulator could allow.