1st-Person Tactical Shooters: COTS Games with Military

Training Potential?
Michael Barlow; Peter Morrison and Adam Easton
spike@adfa.edu.au, morpj97@hn.ozemail.com.au, aceaston@hotmail.com

School of Computer Science

University of NSW @ ADFA
Northcott Drive ACT 2600

Abstract: One of the more popular genres of modern computer games is that known as the “1st-Person Shooter”.
In a 1st-Person perspective view players control heavily armed characters fighting in a fully-realised 3D world
inhabited by multiple participants. A relatively recent innovation to the genre is that known as tactical (or squad-
level) shooters; these have more detailed combat physics models and an inherent recognition of hierarchies of
command and the section as a unit. The paper discusses a preliminary evaluation of one such game – Operation
Flashpoint. Scenarios were designed for the game based on small unit tactics training- with the game being
enhanced to support Australian Army units, operations up to company level, and other dynamic behaviours not
in the original game. The system was demonstrated to a number of Lieutenants of the Australian Army who had
recently completed tactical training and their responses elicited. The article concludes with a number of
recommendations.

1. INTRODUCTION controlling. FPS games are action (fast paced) titles

This paper is a preliminary study of the potential
military training aid offered by a COTS
(Commercial Off The Shelf) game. The potential,
and associated risks, offered by employing
computer games for military training or analysis are
not yet well understood. However a number of such
applications of computer games are beginning to
emerge [1,2,3,4].
The article has the following structure. The
following section outlines the features of the First
Person Shooter genre, and more particularly that of
the tactical 1st person shooter. The next section
details the investigation of the game Operation
Flashpoint - giving details of its features, the
scenarios that were developed as a test of its
versatility, and the subjective evaluations
performed. The article concludes with a discussion
of the potential this genre of game may offer and
the challenges that must be met for that potential to
be realised.
2. THE 1ST PERSON SHOOTER GENRE
One of the more popular genres of modern
computer games, accounting for 3-4% of sales [5],
is that known as the 1st person shooter. The genre
was started in 1992 with the famous title
Wolfenstein 3D from ID Software [6]. That release
created a new game genre, known as the 1st person
shooter, that has lasted a decade, and for which
many titles are available and in development at any
one time.
First-Person Shooters (FPS) share a number of
common features – a 3D environment is shown to
the user from a first person’s perspective; that is
through the eyes of the character they are
in which players invariably control a heavily armed
character in a hostile environment – both computer
controlled forces and, potentially, characters
controlled by other human players seek the
destruction of the player’s character.
Other common features in modern FPS games
include a range of weaponry and equipment that the
character may be armed with, increasingly
sophisticated physics simulation engines, multi-
player support, and “AI” (Artificial Intelligence)
opponents - computer controlled characters. FPS
games differ in the setting - the backdrop against
which the action takes place; these range from
fantasy worlds through modern settings to futuristic
and science fiction. A currently popular setting is
modern military or paramilitary. Examples of this
include Operation Flashpoint from Bohemia
Interactive Studios and Ghost Recon from UbiSoft.
Further, popular titles such as Quake III and Unreal
Tournament attract an active and dedicated
community of users interested in extending the
game. These extensions are known by two names.
Skinning is the activity of adding new objects or
altering the surface look and feel of the game.
Modding is more sophisticated and involves
employing the game engine in new ways - new
types of settings and ways to play the game.
Currently Urban Terror mods - those focusing on
modern settings and equipment, with lethal combat
engines, are very popular.
2.1 Tactical 1st person shooters
While a number of the features of FPS games make
them a possible training or evaluation tool for the
military, a number of other features of the genre
have meant their full potential in this regard has not
been realised. Increasingly sophisticated combat
physics engines have emerged – ones that semi-
accurately model modern ordinance and its effects
such as the ability of a single round to kill or of
structures to be demolished. However play has
typically revolved around a style known as
“deathmatch” – players roam a set of rooms and
corridors killing all other characters they encounter.
A sub-genre of the FPS that has recently emerged is
that known as 1st Person Tactical Shooters (FPTS),
or alternatively 1st Person Squad Shooters.
Examples of games in this area include Tribes and
Tribes 2, Operation Flashpoint, Rainbow Six, and
Ghost Recon. These games have built-in support for
team play at the section or squad level. They also
tend to support realistic and open environments,
have a richer set of interactions between the
characters and the environment (e.g., vehicles that
can be entered and controlled), and more realistic
combat systems that standard FPS (single shots can
kill, damage to different parts of the body
incapacitates in different ways).
FPTS appear the most likely candidates of the FPS
genre as a training tool for the infantry. The game
engine more closely supports the level of realism
demanded for military training and the settings
more closely match those of real life and the
potential scenarios used in training infantry.
3. OPERATION FLASHPOINT
In order to determine whether a FPTS could be
employed as part of infantry training a pilot study
was conducted. The most likely candidate from the
current pool of FPTS was selected. That game was
then analysed in two regards. First, how easily, and
to what extent could the game be tailored for a
military training environment and scenarios?
Secondly, just how effective was the modified
version?
The game that was selected for evaluation was
Operation Flashpoint (OFP) [7]. Released in mid
2001, the game takes place against a mid-80s cold-
war in which America and Russia have begun a
limited conventional war. The game has won
numerous awards for its playability and veracity.
Due to the modern equipment available to
characters, the open outdoor environments, the
“realistic” game engine, and powerful editing
capabilities the game was selected as the best
possible candidate currently. Indeed this closely
parallels a recent decision by the USMC to employ
a version of the game for training [2].
To that end a number of copies of OFP were
installed on dedicated desktop machines. The
machines were networked and equipped with
headset microphones for inter-player
communication.
3.1 Evaluation Scenarios
Operation Flashpoint comes provided with a
number of scenarios for single and multi-player
play. These scenarios are intended for
entertainment, and while well designed are not
necessarily true to military doctrine little alone
specifically targeted to test the military training
potential of the game. In order to examine this
aspect a suite of scenarios was designed.
OFP possesses a number of powerful scenario
creation features that enabled specific doctrine-
based scenarios to be created. The game is
equipped with a scenario editor that allows the
placement of units on the map and basic scripting
of behaviour. Movement can be programmed as a
series of waypoints, markers can be placed, and
triggers can be used to initiate new actions when
game events occur. A powerful scripting language
is also part of OFP. The language has many features
of a 3rd generation programming language with
many game specific operators. With the scripting
language it is possible to program complex
behaviours and actions not incorporated in the
original game. Finally, it is possible to modify the
multimedia aspects of the game – adding news
skins – textures for the 3D models, or sounds. All
these features make it possible to extend OFP in
new directions, and thus potentially explore its
utility for military training.
Three different scenarios were designed. Each
scenario represented a different tactical operation –
assault by a mechanized platoon, a defence or
fighting withdrawal, and a special operation in the
form of a search and destroy. Each scenario also
served a different secondary role in terms of
exploring different game, or added features. In one
case heightening the sense of immersion and
relevance to Australian soldiers, in others allowing
what-if scenario analysis or high-level control.
1.1.1. Mechanised Platoon Assault Scenario
The first scenario constructed and also used in later
evaluation was a single-player mechanized platoon
assault. The scenario was entitled “Operation Axe
Point”. The player controlled one of the sections
involved in the assault and careful attention was
paid to ensuring that the briefing and mission itself
were conducted according to Australian Army
doctrine.
To this end considerable effort was expended in not
only structuring the attacking and defending forces
appropriately but also in heightening the sense of
reality or immersion of the mission. Military map
symbols were created and utilised for the 2D map
based briefing, which was also performed
according to the military appreciation process.
Further, models of Australian Army units, not in the
game, including small arms, cammo, and vehicles
were employed. Radio traffic in support of the
assault was recorded with Australian voices and the
squelch and noise transmission qualities of the
service radio equipment was added to those
recordings.
It was found that OFP supported a mechanized
platoon assault scenario with a high degree of
doctrinal veracity and one that was made directly
pertinent to Australian soldiers.
1.1.2. Fighting Withdrawal Scenario
The second scenario constructed was a multi-player
fighting withdrawal. The scenario was entitled
“Forward Echelon” and involved a platoon facing a
company level assault ahead of which it had to
withdraw in good order. Players could play one of
the three section leaders, or indeed one of the
individual section members.
Emphasis was placed in the scenario construction
on checking the game’s ability to support the
coordination necessary between the different
sections in order that the withdrawal was made in
good order.
To that end voice communication via headset
microphone was found to be particularly useful for
player coordination. Further, a sophisticated script
was incorporated in the scenario that allowed a
human player to control a section of which they
were not a member by employing the in-game
radio. This allowed even a single player to control
the entire platoon as well as supporting multi-player
play in which one or more sections did not have a
human player as member. The script was found to
be very powerful but limited by the simple model
of radio communication that the game supported.
1.1.3. Special Operations Scenario
The third scenario constructed was a multi-player
special operations mission. Players could play
either side in the mission – on one side a section
that had penetrated deep into enemy territory and
needed to escape. On the other side platoon
members of a larger search to find and destroy the
insurgents before they escaped. The mission was
entitled “HQ Discovered”.
Emphasis was placed in the scenario on checking
the game’s ability to support both cooperative and
opposed team play. The scenario was designed to
allow each side to attempt a number of approaches
in achieving their goal – supporting a form of what-
if analysis.
Special scripts were written that extended the game
in a number of ways. The insurgents could call for a
dynamic helicopter extraction, or summon a boat to
one of several pre-defined pickup points. The
searching side had a number of computer controlled
units involved and scripting was employed in order
that these units would report any contact they made
with the enemy. In order to make pursuit of the
computer controlled insurgents (if no human was
controlling them) more interesting a script was
employed so that different escape choices and
routes were selected each time the scenario was
replayed, making the computer oppnent
unpredictable.
3.2 Subjective Evaluation
In order to complement the constructive evaluation
discussed in the previous subsection, a subjective
evaluation was also performed. A group of twelve
(12) Australian Army lieutenants was enlisted All
officers were graduates of RMC, and familiar with
infantry minor tactics and low level operations.
Further, all had experience with computer-based
training such as the Weapons Training Simulation
System (WTSS), and all were familiar with the
operation of computers and computer games.
The evaluators were systematically guided through
an introduction to and evaluation of the game. On
average this took 1-hour per responder, at the end
of which period the evaluator completed a series of
13 questions pertaining to the game.
The evaluation process comprised an introductory
briefing followed by hands-on play in a simple
scenario that taught movement and firing skills.
That was then followed by play in 2 of the 3
scenarios designed as part of the constructive
evaluation - the multiplayer search and destroy
mission known as "HQ Discovered", and the single
player mechanized platoon assault known as "Axe
Point".
The culmination of the evaluation for each
participant was the completion of a questionnaire.
The questionnaire comprised 13-questions
pertaining to the training potential of Operation
Flashpoint. For each question responders selected
between one of 6 responses ranging from very poor
(-5), through poor (-3), below average (-1), above
average (+1), good (+3) and very good (+5).
Evaluators were also provided space to write
comments on each of the questions.
The questions fell into two categories. The first
group pertained to the veracity of the game - its
ability to realistically model low level operations.
The responses to these questions are found in
Figure 1. The second category pertained to the
training potential of OFP. The responses to these
questions are summarized in Figure 2. Table 1 is a
complete summary of the 13 questions showing the
mean and standard deviation of responses to each.
 Question Mean σ The fourth question of the veracity set was How
Simulation of Physical aspects 3.2 1.8 realistic is the carrying capacity of individuals in
Sense of Scale of Combat Env. 0.3 2.7 the game? Some participants believed that the
Utility of 2D Map 4 Tac. Appr. 3.5 1.2 carrying capacity was unrealistic, whilst others
Realism of carrying capacity 0.2 3.1 thought that it was accurate. The primary concern
Veracity of command structure 0.8 3.0 of a number of participants was that the speed of
AI decisions & actions 2.2 1.8 movement appeared unaffected when heavily
Section Level potential 4.0 1.3 loaded. According to doctrine, units in the game
Platoon Level potential 1.8 2.2
carry more than in reality.
Company Level potential -0.8 2.0
Tactical Training potential 3.5 1.2
Teamwork & subunit training 1.8 2.2
Battlecraft training potential 0.0 1.8
Training Aid potential for 3.8 1.3
Australian Army
Table 1: Mean and standard deviation of responses
to the 13 questions asked of the 12 army lieutenants
in the subjective evaluation. Responders chose from
one of 6 possible responses ranging from very poor
(-5) through to very good (+5).

The first group of questions numbered six and

pertained to the veracity of the game - its ability to
model the physical aspects of a low-level infantry
engagement, and provide a sense of immersion
within that environment. Those results are
summarized in Figure 1.
The first question of the veracity set was How
effective is the game in simulating the physical
aspects of combat? Generally responders thought
Figure 1: Subjective evaluation by 12 Australian
that the physical representation of combat was
Army officers of the veracity of Operation
good. Weapon effects were considered accurate,
Flashpoint. The 6 criteria were physical
especially for those of an explosive nature. Damage
representation of combat, sense of scale of the
from projective weapons was seen as too weak –
combat environment, utility of the 2D map, realism
participants thought that a bullet would affect
of carrying capacity, match of command structure
aiming and movement to a greater extent than in the
to field commands, and reality of actions of the AI.
game. Some also thought that the movement speed
Responders rated each criterion on a 6-point scale
of units in the game was unrealistically fast.
from Very Poor to Very Good.
The second question of the veracity set was How
well does the game provide a suitable sense of the
scale of the combat environment? The officers were The fifth question of the veracity set was How
sometimes put off or disoriented by the computer closely do the commands available to you as a
screen which affected their sense of scale, in that commander in OFP match the commands you
they were unable to gain an accurate sense of scale. would employ in the field? [Generally, participants
Generally people thought the size of objects were thought that all of the required commands were
realistic compared to landscape features of the present, given that OFP doesn’t support inter-
terrain. section groups. The method of target indication was
considered accurate, although it differs slightly
The third question of the veracity set was How
from the methods used in reality to identify the
effective is the 2D map provided in facilitating the
position of features on the ground. Some
tactical appreciation process? Participants
participants suggested that the commands must
commented favourably on the 2D map within the
match those used in reality to a greater extent for
game, primarily because it was of so much higher
the game to be really useful.
detail when compared to similar first-person games.
The topographic nature of the map suited RMC The sixth and final question of the veracity set was
graduates who were used to that form of terrain How well do the tactical movements and actions of
representation. However, the inclusion of every tree the computer controlled section members resemble
and bush on the map was seen as unrealistic. The those you would expect from trained soldiers in the
map was viewed as an appropriate planning tool for field? The animations of characters firing and
scenarios within the game. moving were considered realistic. However, tactical
movement in reality is done in fire teams, pairs or
groups, and as such this was not simulated. The
characters used cover and concealment where
available which was viewed favourably by the
participants. Actions such as reloading and
changing weapons were completed slightly faster
than in reality.
Six questions were also asked in order to gauge the
training potential of OFP - its applicability at
various tactical levels as well as to particular
tactical skills. Those results are summarized in
Figure 2.
Figure 2: Subjective evaluation by 12 Australian
Army officers of the veracity of Operation
Flashpoint. The 6 criteria were effectiveness for
section, platoon, and company level training,
effectiveness as a tactical training aid, effectiveness
for treamwork training, and effectiveness for
training battlecraft skills. Responders rated each
criterion on a 6-point scale from Very Poor to Very
Good.
The first question of the training potential batch of
questions was How effective do you believe the
game could be in representing section scenarios?
OFP was seen as a good medium to represent
section scenarios. Command techniques within the
section were easy for most participants to pick up,
and accurate movement of section members was
possible. However, the lack of correct section sub-
groups (gun, assault and scout groups) was
commented on. In reality groups within the section
support one another, for example, during an assault
the gun group may cover the scout and assault
groups moving towards the objective. This is
impossible to achieve in OFP.
The second question of the training potential batch
of questions was How effective do you believe the
game could be in representing platoon scenarios?
Participants thought that Operation Axe-point, one
of the designed scenarios, was a very realistic
representation of a platoon assault, and that OFP
can represent platoon scenarios well. However,
controlling sections via the radio – the work-around
employed to lift OFP above section level by
simulating a platoon commander’s role - was
considered very difficult by the participants. This
was due to the limitation of the radio being the only
form of input available in the game.
The third of the training potential questions was
How effective do you believe the game could be in
representing company scenarios? Participants
thought that OFP would not be good at representing
company scenarios. The primary reason is that on a
19-inch monitor situational awareness is not very
high. Although it was considered feasible to
participate in a company assault, platoon level
scenarios were considered the highest level that
OFP could effectively simulate.
The fourth of the training potential questions was
How effective would OFP be as a training aid for
tactics? Participants commented that OFP would be
a good training aid for tactics. The high-detail map
combined with realistic contacts and weapon effects
was seen as suitable for representing infantry,
armoured and combined tactics.
The fifth of the training potential questions was
How effective would OFP be as a training aid for
teamwork and sub-unit cohesion? Generally,
participants suggested that OFP could provide an
above average training aid for teamwork and sub-
unit cohesion. Situational awareness was raised as a
limiting factor, as situational awareness on the
battlefield is seen as very important. Voice
communications over the game was viewed as very
beneficial when working in a multiplayer
environment.
The last question of the training potential set was
How effective would OFP be as a training aid for
individual battlecraft skills? Some participants
thought that individual battlecraft skills such as fire
and movement, choosing appropriate cover, battle
drills (ambushes, moving in harbours etc.) and
action on contact could be improved by OFP.
Weapons drills were noted impossible to simulate
in the game. Aiming of the weapon, however, was
considered fairly realistic (for example aiming off
when firing at a moving target and long-range
targeting).
Finally, a general summative question was asked
concerning the suitability of the game as a training
aid for the Australian Army: How effective do you
feel OFP would be as a training aid for the
Australian Army? The results are summarized in
Figure 3. With a mean response value of 3.8 most
participants felt it was a good to very good option.
Participants enjoyed their experience with OFP and
felt that it could be used in a number of pertinent
training areas, both at the soldier and officer levels.
Much work remains to be done in this area – far
larger studies in which such games are actually
employed as part of training are necessary. New
games with more sophisticated features are
emerging all the time. Finally, the risks posed by
employing these games for training also need to be
studied.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the
assistance of Bohemia Interactive Studios in
providing the models of the Australian units.
Further, the authors wish to thank the participants
in the subjective study.

6. REFERENCES
1. Robinson E. (1998) “The Pentagon Finally Learns
How to Shop”, Business 2.0 Magazine,
http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,1640,4771,FF.h
tml
2. Virtual Battlefield Systems Homepage,
http://www.virtualbattlefieldsystem.com/
3. Appleget J.A., and Illingworth J.E. (2001) “Land
Warrior Training Initiative”, SimTecT 2001 Conference
Figure 3: Subjective evaluation by 12 Australian Proceedings, p319-324.
Army officers of the training aid benefit potential to 4. Smith J.D. (2002), Private Communication
the Australian Army of utilizing a game such as 5. Interactive Digital Software Association,
Operation Flashpoint. Responders rated the www.idsa.com
potential on a 6-point scale from Very Poor to Very 6. History of ID Software,
Good. http://www.idsoftware.com/corporate/index.html
7. Operation Flashpoint Homepage,
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/index2.html
4. DISCUSSION
The paper has presented a preliminary evaluation
and study of the potential infantry training benefits
offered by a COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf)
FPTS (First Person Tactical Shooter) known as
Operation Flashpoint. A number of scenarios were
created to investigate the ease and extent to which
the game could be altered to suit infantry training.
That was followed by a subjective evaluation of the
game and its potential by a dozen Lieutenants from
the Australian Army.
Using a combination of the game’s own setting and
objects, the in-built scenario editing capabilities,
and non-trivial programming in the game’s
scripting language it was found possible to create
attack, defence, and special operations scenarios
comparable to those studied as part of an infantry
minor tactics course. Indeed, the fact that the game
offered the powerful mission creation and scripting
capabilities was vital in the success of this aspect of
the study.
The subjective evaluation highlighted a number of
areas in which participants felt the game had
significant potential as a training aid. In particular
training for section-level tactics and operations was
seen as one area where the game could be of aid.
All participants believed the game had potential as
a training aid for the Australian Army.