The key with using the games for training is whether or not you have a facilitator who can keep the adjudication moving at a pace that forces a realistic decision cycle on the participants (assuming you have their decisions being made at the right echelon - another discussion altogether).
That adjudication can be man-in-the-loop, it can be all-digits, it can be a puckster interacting with the digits for you, it can be someone who knows how to play the tabletop game that tells the players which dice to roll, or it can be a group of guys who know the game well enough to run the CRT themselves. Whatever mechanism you choose, though, you need to make sure that it can move at an appropriate pace that the participants are making decisions at the speed you want them to for the training event.
This is where computers really shine compared to their analog counterparts - the speed of presentation at the single-man level is far superior in the digital world, but may be wholly unnecessary (or even inappropriate) for a division staff.
By: Brant
Posts
3 comments:
Game based training is a great idea. It doesn't take anywhere near the logistical support that a field training exercise requires. While not a replacement for realistic in the mud training, I would have loved this option over having troops doing menial task to keep them busy.
Matt - good to see you. Stick around and offer some thoughts here and there :)
I'd love to see you drop a line here more frequently!
Random comment: Minute box examination suppose paradoxes.
Not so random comment: Agree. The point of the game is usually to get the trainees to role-play, or at least begin to understand what goes into the actual task the game is training them for. I'm doubtful of the military's need for putting everything on a computer screen, when a BOGSAT could be just as appropriate.
Post a Comment