Kill Chain

[WargamerScott]

I just read the SubSim headline article on Kill Chain (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/dec1/sb-navy.htm) and was wondering what Kill Chain can offer that DW cannot?

"“The intent is to make this a multi-mission module, but the initial focus is ASW [anti-submarine warfare],” said Capt. Paul Rosbolt, program manager of ASW at PEO-IWS, which coordinates research, development and procurement of new ASW systems. "

and

"The PC-based simulation has a man-versus-machine, or artificial intelligence, capability, said Byrne."


Talk about inflating you resume.... :D So does every other wargame I played over the last 10 years!

"Players can choose to be a tactical action officer or a commanding officer of a ship on the red or blue sides. Or, for analysis work, the simulation can be set to run against itself, said Byrne. "

Sounds like DW again. The machine versus machine sounds interesting though.

"During a recent games conference in Arlington, Va., Byrne displayed a demonstration depicting three U.S. ships in battle against three Chinese ships. The war-fighting could be viewed via a 2-D display, known as the Naval Tactical Data System, and a 3-D display, in which players can watch the ships being attacked or ride along with the missiles being fired."

You don't say....

"The electronics entertainment industry spends roughly 80 percent of its development budget on graphics and 20 percent on realism, said Byrne. To develop “Kill Chain,” the design team flipped the equation, investing 80 percent of its resources in realism. "

Hmm...I guess he hasn't played any serious wargames in awhile....

"“How many guys do you think could walk from the bow of a Chinese class destroyer to stern and can talk about all the systems on board? I put a guy in this game, and I make him the CO of that ship, and he’s in battle. By the end of an hour and a half, he’s going to understand what the capabilities in that ship are. And if the next time he plays on the blue side, and he hears that ship on radar, he’s going to remember what’s on that ship. I say, that’s training,” said Byrne."

Sans the Chinese ships, DW does the same for $39.

:hmm: It sounds to me that KC is just a big-budget government sim that mimicks DW capabilities. :D

BTW: The Kill Chain contract was for $11.4 million. Out of curiosity, what was the development cost for DW?

Also, the article says that:

"Upon completion, the simulation will comprise one million lines of code."

How does DW stack up?
[/url]

[TLAM Strike]

How do they stack up? I can compare DW to KC in one sentence;

As a civilian you can buy DW, KC not so much…

[WargamerScott]

How do they stack up? I can compare DW to KC in one sentence;

As a civilian you can buy DW, KC not so much…


Ah, but if I could, would I want to? That is the question. ;)

[Furia]

I think Dangerous Waters is the answer to the civilian market.
We do not need more complicated sims and belive me if they make it really real we all must go to the Naval Academy :88)
We are taliking about realism in other threads and everybody agrees that we have to have a common gorund to ensure gameplay.
I fly real simulators and I also try the latest commercial PC simulators and well, they are not even close one to the other.
The most realistic flight sim I know, Falcon (now Allied Force) does not draw hords of people because of its dificulty and anyway it is not the real thing about complexity.
I do not think the Navy wants its sailors and officers to have fun while training on this utility so I doubt any of us would.

Anyway for those that are really ready for maximum realism and complexity I strongly suggest you APOLLO 18
There you will be really tested on realism and complexity.
Of course if you can accomplish even to lift off from the ground. :rock:

I love the way the sim it is right now.

[SeaQueen]

"The PC-based simulation has a man-versus-machine, or artificial intelligence, capability, said Byrne."


Talk about inflating you resume.... So does every other wargame I played over the last 10 years!

You have to understand, a lot of naval officers don't really know much about anything besides how to pound the bejeezus out of stuff, so the more macho you can make it sound, the more likely they are to buy it. They like simple, catchy, phrases with small words, unless it's "utilize" in place of "use" because they think that makes them sound smart. Beltway bandits know this, respect this, and are good salesmen for it.


"Players can choose to be a tactical action officer or a commanding officer of a ship on the red or blue sides. Or, for analysis work, the simulation can be set to run against itself, said Byrne. "

Sounds like DW again. The machine versus machine sounds interesting though.

It can be. It depends. That's the sort of thing I do all day at work, designing and running those types of simulations that just play themselves. It's Monte Carlo for war, just the same as you use for see how well you're doing with your 401k. There's a lot of models out there that do similar things. I guess from a PC gamers perspective, you could use this to see if what you did was really sound or if you just lucked out, or maybe play with things to see if you do better or worse. Honestly, though, I'd rather just sit down and play, than set up a scenario and let it run ten thousand times and analyze the output. People have to pay me for that.


Hmm...I guess he hasn't played any serious wargames in awhile....


This isn't to say that there's not a fair bit of depth to DW, but if you've ever been in the CIC of a real warship, you'd realize there's still a long way to go.


:hmm: It sounds to me that KC is just a big-budget government sim that mimicks DW capabilities. :D


In all likelyhood, it probably also has a lot of ways for outputting data for later analysis. It probably also includes a lot of stuff DW can't include. There's probably a lot of proceedural stuff included that isn't included in DW to speed up game play. The radar model is probably a lot more detailed. It'd be interesting to see if their sonar model is the navy's standard one or if they did something different. It'd have to accept data from lots of different sources. They'd have to include support for multistatics. There's also a lot of stuff they simply can't include because any time you start trying to make something very specific regarding warfare, in all likelyhood it will be classified. A real life military sim would have a classified database as opposed to a combination of made up and publically available values. Depending on what you're talking about, the differences can be quite large.

DW is a good place to start for a full-blown training aid, though. The basics are there. Don't short change how different it is, though.

[Mau]

SeaQueen wrote:

''You have to understand, a lot of naval officers don't really know much about anything besides how to pound the bejeezus out of stuff, so the more macho you can make it sound, the more likely they are to buy it. They like simple, catchy, phrases with small words, unless it's "utilize" in place of "use" because they think that makes them sound smart. Beltway bandits know this, respect this, and are good salesmen for it. "

I will not take it personal since I am an officer in the Canadian Navy....

[OneShot]

Same goes here ... just different Navy. You know Officers are generally choosen and trained to think and at least in the german navy are suppose to have a pretty broad horizon (if you know what I mean). :hulk: :rotfl:

[SeaQueen]

I will not take it personal since I am an officer in the Canadian Navy....

To date, I've only met one Canadian naval officer. He was a P-3 pilot. My sample sizes with respect for other navies are limited.

[SeaQueen]

Same goes here ... just different Navy. You know Officers are generally choosen and trained to think and at least in the german navy are suppose to have a pretty broad horizon (if you know what I mean). :hulk: :rotfl:

Well... ya know... I think a lot of it is that I deal with people at the Pentagon, which is all about pissing contests, politics, and power games. I really liked the people I met when I was at sea. A lot of thinking people don't have patience for that kind of nonsense, and so they do well at sea, but not necessarily at the Pentagon.

The worst are the Flag officers and former Flag officers. They have the best gig going, though. They have a career of 30 years, then make SERIOUS money as "consultants," to Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, etc. I met this one former admiral, his wife had the most beautiful fur coat I think I've ever seen.

[Wildcat]

The funny thing is that even realistic sims are considered games by the military. The air force did a huge writeup about Falcon 4 and in the end concluded that Falcon 4 is still just a game, not a simulation.

DW is very good but I think intentionally has not been given the same kind of capabilities the military would use for training.

The only actual military simulation that I know of that is available to the public is Steel Beasts and its variations. It is used in its unmodified state to train tank crews of various armies throughout the world.

[SeaQueen]

The funny thing is that even realistic sims are considered games by the military. The air force did a huge writeup about Falcon 4 and in the end concluded that Falcon 4 is still just a game, not a simulation.

DW is very good but I think intentionally has not been given the same kind of capabilities the military would use for training.

The only actual military simulation that I know of that is available to the public is Steel Beasts and its variations. It is used in its unmodified state to train tank crews of various armies throughout the world.

Harpoon 3 has a professional edition that the Australians use.

[WargamerScott]

Some interesting replies here. My main point was that the line between professional and hobby wargames is starting to blur. Sure, the professional stuff will have access to all sorts of classified info and may be optimized for teaching sessions, but the point remains that the "games" we are playing today, like DW, TACOPS, CMAK, et alia, would have been military grade just a few years ago (and in the case of TACOPS and CMAK, they are both used by various military orgs around the world). To play any of these games is to get a real education in real world strategy and tactics. I wrote a blog entry on this called "Enter the Martial Matrix" that explains this a little better (visit my blog to read it). Ironically, that entry was inspired by a particularly tense sension of SH3. In fairness, I guess I need to come up with a DW inspired entry. :D Point is, from the POV of being a player or being a designer of modern hobby wargames is no longer that far removed from working with the professional stuff. Heck, look at DW---it is made by Sonalysts---a professional military contractor. This fact sort of sums up our contemporary state of affairs. Makes you wonder where it all may lead some day.... :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

So, basically you are saying that commercial simulations won't disappear off the face of the earth (eg. there will be at least one in each catagory that is worth playing) because the military still needs people with the skills to make such programs and provides the economic incentive to do so in one way or another. :hmm:

Interesting Marxian argument. I like it. :up:

[SeaQueen]

Some interesting replies here. My main point was that the line between professional and hobby wargames is starting to blur.

I think that's fair. There was an interesting conference recently on "Serious games," with some people from the Center for Naval Analysis speeking. They also had a good article in a National Defence Weekly about it.


To play any of these games is to get a real education in real world strategy and tactics.


Potentially, however, as a "pro" who plays wargames for analytical work as well as for fun, my experience is that scenarios I create for the purpose of studying real world tactics are frequently boring to entertainment oriented gamers. They play slower and they're usually very difficult. I think the biggest thing is patience. ASW sims are potentially really bad in this respect.


Point is, from the POV of being a player or being a designer of modern hobby wargames is no longer that far removed from working with the professional stuff.


The difference has always been very blurry. Look at James Dunnigan, besides being a long time defense analyst he also has been heavily involved in wargaming as a hobby. Frequently, while the DATA is often different, the METHODOLOGY is the same or similar. The methods of operations research, modeling and simulation are not classified and they've been around a long time. You can order books on it from the Military Operations Research Society (MORS). You can find pictures dating back to the first world war of a bunch of mathematicians and naval officers gaming things out on table tops with miniatures.

P.S. I found out someone at work has the demo version of Kill Chain. I'll let you guys know how it's different. It looks kinda neat. At first glance, though, it's definitely a tool before a game. The graphics aren't quite as flashy as you see these days and there's a lot of stuff for outputting data. I can't wait to play with it.

[WargamerScott]

So, basically you are saying that commercial simulations won't disappear off the face of the earth (eg. there will be at least one in each catagory that is worth playing) because the military still needs people with the skills to make such programs and provides the economic incentive to do so in one way or another. :hmm:

Interesting Marxian argument. I like it. :up:

Er, no that wasn't my point---but that was a valid leap of logic that you made! And I agree with it completely! :D Although I would consider it capitalist logic (Marxist logic would seem to dictate that there will not be any sims unless the government funds a sim design bureau. LOL!).

[LuftWolf]

Marxist logic

Marxism is an ideology.

"Marxian" describes a school of economics and social theory that posits the relation of society and economics is one of a social superstructure built on top of an economic foundation, to suggest that all social activity is the result of fulfilling economic needs by the means of production.

[WargamerScott]

Potentially, however, as a "pro" who plays wargames for analytical work as well as for fun, my experience is that scenarios I create for the purpose of studying real world tactics are frequently boring to entertainment oriented gamers. They play slower and they're usually very difficult. I think the biggest thing is patience. ASW sims are potentially really bad in this respect.

Can you give an example using DW? How would you create a professionally-oriented scenario using DW?

The difference has always been very blurry. Look at James Dunnigan, besides being a long time defense analyst he also has been heavily involved in wargaming as a hobby....

P.S. I found out someone at work has the demo version of Kill Chain. I'll let you guys know how it's different. It looks kinda neat. At first glance, though, it's definitely a tool before a game. The graphics aren't quite as flashy as you see these days and there's a lot of stuff for outputting data. I can't wait to play with it.


A good book to explore the history of wargaming, especially naval wargaming is R. Perla's THE ART OF WARGAMING. It is a very informative and entertaining read, be you an amateur or professional.

Do let us know about Kill Chain versus DW! I am really curious to learn the differences. :know:

[WargamerScott]

Marxist logic

Marxism is an ideology.

"Marxian" describes a school of economics and social theory that posits the relation of society and economics is one of a social superstructure built on top of an economic foundation, to suggest that all social activity is the result of fulfilling economic needs by the means of production.

We're not going to have an argument about dialectical materialism, are we? Then I need to brush up on J.W.F. Hegel---the root of all Marxist thought!

But I still think your arguement is a better example of Adam Smith's free market at work. As long as there is a demand, some one will step up to the plate and meet that demand with a supply of Product X. As a result, a skilled workforce will form and make the product for monetary gain.

In the case of military sims, the government is willing to buy them at top dollar, so even people who might not be inclined to produce such a product will develop the necessary skills to make them. During the course of normal affairs, some people will branch off and make hobby games for more money or to seek an area of lesser competition. Eventually, the two communities will begin to feed a cycle of cross-pollination which will benefit both parties. As long as a demand remains, the cycle will continue---hence SH3 and DW. :D

[LuftWolf]

But I still think your arguement is a better example of Adam Smith's free market at work. As long as there is a demand, some one will step up to the plate and meet that demand with a supply of Product X. As a result, a skilled workforce will form and make the product for monetary gain.

Well I was thinking more in terms of the role that socially construed consumer forces are generally thought to play in the gaming market, "X consumer has a preference for Y type of game because of socially determined factor Z."

Your argument includes an economic factor sustaining the simulation gaming community, the need of the military for these types of programs, which then in turn drives social forces that lead to the existence of those who make simulators and those who play them.

So Smith and Marx agree on this point, as long as someone is willing to pay money for a simulator, there will be those making and using them. :yep: :-j

[SeaQueen]

Can you give an example using DW? How would you create a professionally-oriented scenario using DW?


One probably wouldn't use DW for doing the kind of analysis that I do at work, at least not routinely, because you can't automatically run the same scenario over and over again using different seed numbers for the random number generator and compile statistics. The technique is called Monte Carlo. It's very hard to compile statistically useful data from DW.

Professionally, we use wargames to try to answer a specific question. Suppose there is a new sensor that the Navy is thinking about buying. The sensor might not even exist yet, except on paper. It's just an outline of some things some engineers think they can pull off. The person in the Navy in charge of giving these people money wants to know how the new sensor fits into the Navy they anticipate having when this sensor will be done, and how it will contribute to winning battles in the conflicts we anticipate having at some point in the future.

We try to identify a potential scenario where the sensor will matter most if it matters at all, and then play that scenario through over-and-over again on a computer to develop some kind of measurement of how well we do. Next we take the sensor out and compare results. Sometimes it matters a little, sometimes it matters a lot, sometimes it doesn't matter at all. From that we can make recommendations about whether we think it's something worth funding or not.

Usually, the scenarios are pretty simple. Since I do mostly ASW stuff, we're almost always modeling area clearence or barrier patrols. The other thing people do is model entire campaigns.


A good book to explore the history of wargaming, especially naval wargaming is R. Perla's THE ART OF WARGAMING. It is a very informative and entertaining read, be you an amateur or professional.


Yes, it's a very good book.


Do let us know about Kill Chain versus DW! I am really curious to learn the differences. :know:

The demo I saw was just a movie. Superficially, it isn't all that different from Dangerous Waters, at least that's how they're marketing it. It LOOKS really cool, but I'm actually kind of disappointed in their marketing because I think they're undermining their ability to sell it as an analysis tool. If they make it look too gamey they'll make some people think it's not really useful. I think they need to emphasize what it produces besides just cool graphics, because it's fun to be able to show people these kinds of cinematic visualizations but somehow we need to also show them some numbers.

There some stuff that I wish we had in DW, like VTUAVs and MPF-F ships. I think they spent more time on the way they model EO/IR sensors. There is provision to output data. As far as I can tell there's no support for multistatics in Kill Chain either (bummer). That's about all I can tell. *shrug*

Here's their web site:

http://www.kill-chain.com/

[compressioncut]

I will not take it personal since I am an officer in the Canadian Navy....

To date, I've only met one Canadian naval officer. He was a P-3 pilot. My sample sizes with respect for other navies are limited.

Then he was either in the Air Force or full of it. The Canadian Navy proper only supplies surface/subsurface guys. The Air Force supplies the zoomies, and the CP-140 (P-3) guys have very little to do with the surface fleet, at all.

It's ironic that they take ASW much more seriously than the skimmer community, when we are the guys actually facing torpedoes in the water...

[Apocal]

Multistatics?

[SeaQueen]

Multistatics?

Monostatic acoustics is when the source and receiver is co-located. Examples: DICASS buoys, SQS-53, SQS-56.

Multistatic acoustics is when the source and receiver are not co-located. Examples: EER buoys ("bangers"), and similar techniques used for oil exploration

[SeaQueen]

Then he was either in the Air Force or full of it. The Canadian Navy proper only supplies surface/subsurface guys. The Air Force supplies the zoomies, and the CP-140 (P-3) guys have very little to do with the surface fleet, at all.

Oh! I forget you guys organize things similar to the British (the Air Force gets the MPAs).


It's ironic that they take ASW much more seriously than the skimmer community, when we are the guys actually facing torpedoes in the water...

Why do you think that is?

[Apocal]

Multistatic acoustics is when the source and receiver are not co-located. Examples: EER buoys ("bangers"), and similar techniques used for oil exploration

Ah I see.


It's ironic that they take ASW much more seriously than the skimmer community, when we are the guys actually facing torpedoes in the water...

Why do you think that is?

I can only speak for the USN in this regard but: To put it bluntly, ASW is considered boring.

From what I've heard, it was taken much more seriously during the Cold War, but since then, strike warfare (ie. launching Tomahawks and dropping bombs) has taken precedence, while AAW kept it's previous level of prestige. Part of it is the nature of ASW, you can't just "play-through" a series of ASW scenarios during a practice GQ, like you can with STW, ASuW and AAW, nor do they mix well. AAW and ASuW just fine when put together, but ASW requires an entirely different approach. The fog of war is strong, it's less procedural, more of it relies on intuition and experience than any other warfare area and (at least in the engineer-dominated USN) they don't like leaving things to intuition and experience. They want a checklist of steps and a big red button to push.

But when you are flying a MPA that can only do ASuW/ASW with a very limited strike capability, you tend to get good at what you know. Design a surface ship with no VLS, no large caliber gun, but a fantastic sonar suite and you'll probably see a big focus on ASW.

[WargamerScott]

One probably wouldn't use DW for doing the kind of analysis that I do at work, at least not routinely, because you can't automatically run the same scenario over and over again using different seed numbers for the random number generator and compile statistics. The technique is called Monte Carlo. It's very hard to compile statistically useful data from DW.

Professionally, we use wargames to try to answer a specific question. Suppose there is a new sensor that the Navy is thinking about buying. The sensor might not even exist yet, except on paper. It's just an outline of some things some engineers think they can pull off. The person in the Navy in charge of giving these people money wants to know how the new sensor fits into the Navy they anticipate having when this sensor will be done, and how it will contribute to winning battles in the conflicts we anticipate having at some point in the future.

We try to identify a potential scenario where the sensor will matter most if it matters at all, and then play that scenario through over-and-over again on a computer to develop some kind of measurement of how well we do. Next we take the sensor out and compare results. Sometimes it matters a little, sometimes it matters a lot, sometimes it doesn't matter at all. From that we can make recommendations about whether we think it's something worth funding or not.

Usually, the scenarios are pretty simple. Since I do mostly ASW stuff, we're almost always modeling area clearence or barrier patrols. The other thing people do is model entire campaigns.


Thank you for providing that explanation. While I have been playing hobby wargames since I was 13, I never had an opportunity to really learn how professional wargames differ in usage (other than from books). Your explanation was very informative! And I envy you.... ;)



The demo I saw was just a movie. Superficially, it isn't all that different from Dangerous Waters, at least that's how they're marketing it. It LOOKS really cool, but I'm actually kind of disappointed in their marketing because I think they're undermining their ability to sell it as an analysis tool. If they make it look too gamey they'll make some people think it's not really useful. I think they need to emphasize what it produces besides just cool graphics, because it's fun to be able to show people these kinds of cinematic visualizations but somehow we need to also show them some numbers.

There some stuff that I wish we had in DW, like VTUAVs and MPF-F ships. I think they spent more time on the way they model EO/IR sensors. There is provision to output data. As far as I can tell there's no support for multistatics in Kill Chain either (bummer). That's about all I can tell. *shrug*

Here's their web site:

http://www.kill-chain.com/

Maybe they have an eye on both civie and military markets at some point in the future? Like TACOPS?

Thanks for the recon!

[WargamerScott]

I can only speak for the USN in this regard but: To put it bluntly, ASW is considered boring.

From what I've heard, it was taken much more seriously during the Cold War, but since then, strike warfare (ie. launching Tomahawks and dropping bombs) has taken precedence, while AAW kept it's previous level of prestige. Part of it is the nature of ASW, you can't just "play-through" a series of ASW scenarios during a practice GQ, like you can with STW, ASuW and AAW, nor do they mix well. AAW and ASuW just fine when put together, but ASW requires an entirely different approach. The fog of war is strong, it's less procedural, more of it relies on intuition and experience than any other warfare area and (at least in the engineer-dominated USN) they don't like leaving things to intuition and experience. They want a checklist of steps and a big red button to push.... Design a surface ship with no VLS, no large caliber gun, but a fantastic sonar suite and you'll probably see a big focus on ASW.

Very interesting and sort of what I expected considering modern times. I have to be honest: one of the big reasons why I put off buying DW for so long was because I am getting tired of buying sims/wargames that are great at modeling a form of modern combat that is very unlikely in the future. I hate to say it, but when the Cold War ended, so did a big portion of my interest in modern combat. Naval warfare is a little bit different because, while it is *highly* unlikely to see a large scale ground war with an opponent comparable to the USA (such as the former USSR), the navy is always in contact with some lethal platforms owned by a large cast of wacky characters.

Your ASW point is a good example. The only large ASW threat at this point is China with lesser threats from Iran and North Korea. So I can see why ASW is becoming a forgotten son. Of course, if we ever do face an active ASW threat, we could find ourselves playing a painful game of catch-up. But such is the nature of warfare.

[Apocal]

Well, before I put out too much doom and gloom, there has been a recent resurgence in surface ASW. Starting to crack the whip and put their money where their mouth is, as it were. Still not as much as it could be, but that's life when your service is playing second fiddle in the war.

[Jamie]

One probably wouldn't use DW for doing the kind of analysis that I do at work, at least not routinely, because you can't automatically run the same scenario over and over again using different seed numbers for the random number generator and compile statistics. The technique is called Monte Carlo. It's very hard to compile statistically useful data from DW.

We actually made a Monte Carlo version of Fleet Command "back in the day" (AI vs. AI with numerical inputs)... I believe the USN still uses it for visualization and analysis.

Not sure how good it was, of course, but I think they liked it. Boy, I sure hope all of this wasn't classified... :oops:

[SeaQueen]

We actually made a Monte Carlo version of Fleet Command "back in the day" (AI vs. AI with numerical inputs)... I believe the USN still uses it for visualization and analysis.

Not sure how good it was, of course, but I think they liked it. Boy, I sure hope all of this wasn't classified... :oops:

Cool! Did it have a different name?

The one thing that keeps me from ever showing anyone any of the scenarios I make is that I'm scared to death of making something just a little TOO close to things I've seen. It's awkward, really, because someone who hasn't seen the same things, but reads the newspaper and has a brain, could come up with some of the same things and it would be safe.

I wonder how other people who are into wargaming as a hobby and as a profession manage.

[SeaQueen]

Thank you for providing that explanation. While I have been playing hobby wargames since I was 13, I never had an opportunity to really learn how professional wargames differ in usage (other than from books). Your explanation was very informative! And I envy you.... ;)


Thank you!

Companies like the Center for Naval Analysis, Wagner Inc., Systems Planning and Analysis, CACI, SAIC, Mitre, RAND, etc. etc. do a lot of this sort of work. I swear what got me my job as that my background is in physics and I've played Harpoon since I was little. Send 'em your resume. CNA's Operations Evaluation Group is actually particularly neat because they send people to sea regularly. The company that I work for doesn't send people to sea that often, although so far, I've still gotten to spend some time aboard the USS ROBERT G BRADLEY, the USS ANZIO and the USS IWO JIMA. It's a cool job.



Maybe they have an eye on both civie and military markets at some point in the future? Like TACOPS?


Possibly. It's hard to say. Right now the big buzz word is COTS (commerical off the shelf). The idea is that the military doesn't have to spend a million dollars developing a new toaster when they can go down to Walmart and get one. I think that video games are developing sufficent depth that people are getting interested in using them. I mean, heck, if you read Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat he even says that there's an awful lot to be learned with contemporary video games. We'll see.

I think a lot of whether things are adopted or not depends a lot on the specifics of the software.