Is the U.S. Army big enough for two first-person shooter games? Not when there’s a feud between the U.S. Army’s two premier games. In one corner is “Virtual Battlespace 2” (VBS2), chosen by the Army as its official training game in December 2008. In the other corner is “America’s Army 3” (AA3), the wildly popular recruiting game that is also used as a training tool in more than 20 Army programs, from shoothouses to vehicle simulators. At stake is which one will service the Army’s insatiable appetite for first-person-shooter, or FPS, games as training aids.

“America’s Army” has been around for a decade, yet lost to VBS2 in an Army competition. AA3 partisans question whether the selection was stacked against their game. “We lost because it didn’t have enough water towers or cars with orange bumpers,” said Col. Casey Wardynski, the West Point economics expert who conceived of “America’s Army” back in the late 1990s.

VBS2 supporters see a case of sour grapes. “The Army is not willing to accept a lesser product for training our soldiers in time of war. The source selection was based on performance, cost and past history,” said Rob Bowen, chief of the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Capability Manager for Gaming (TCM Gaming), the Army’s office for gaming.

The rivalry may seem baffling to those who aren’t game fanatics obsessed over which game has a millisecond better response time. Indeed, the games have much in common. Both are successful FPS games with roots in the entertainment industry. “America’s Army” has carved a following in the cutthroat world of entertainment gaming. VBS2 is a militarized version of Bohemia Interactive’s “Armed Assault 2” entertainment game; its predecessor, VBS1, was descended from Bohemia’s “Operation Flashpoint,” which also spun off “DARWARS Ambush!”

Yet the prize doesn’t go to the coolest game, but the one whose virtual battlefield can teach an infantry squad how to stay alive on the real one. Factors such as the ability to easily modify a game make the difference between a successful training system and a flop. Wardynski believes AA3 can deliver training faster and cheaper because the Army has a permanent license for the Unreal 3 game engine in AA3. The Army also gets free upgrades for a cutting-edge engine that is constantly evolving to power the latest entertainment games.

TCM Gaming claims VBS2 has the edge in interoperability with other Army simulations, stimulating battle command systems and larger maps, or virtual play areas. VBS2 uses 100-by-100-kilometer maps, while AA3 uses 10-by-10-kilometer maps.

SOURCE CODE OWNERSHIP

Then there is the question of who owns the source code for the games. The U.S. Army owns AA3 and its code, while VBS2 is made by Australia-based Bohemia Interactive Simulations. “We’re obviously going to be inexpensive, because we own the source code,” said “America’s Army” chief engineer Michael Barnett at the Aviation and Missile Development Research and Engineering Center at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Ala.

Wardynski said that when the Army’s Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station (CROWS) program needed a simulation, “it went to one government agency and was quoted a price of $250,000 for a white paper on how that agency would create a solution. That same customer went to Redstone Arsenal and for $60,000, had CROWS in Baghdad in two months.”

However, Bohemia Interactive Simulations CEO Peter Morrison believes that owning source code isn’t that important as long as the software has a good application programming interface, or API, that easily allows interaction with other software. “If a product is shipped with a robust and well-documented API, then source code ownership is not required in order to accomplish 90 percent of what the military needs in a simulation tool,” he said.

Morrison said VBS2 is easier for customers to modify, a key consideration for today’s users who prefer to modify games themselves than wait months for a contractor to do it. “The Unreal tools are designed for game developers, whereas our tools are designed for end users,” he said.

The Army itself seems curiously ambivalent on what games its soldiers should use. In the old days, instructors would head down to Best Buy and get whatever game they thought would work. But a July 2008 memo from then-Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody warned commanders not to procure training devices and games without first coordinating with TRADOC.

“Coordination is necessary to ensure standardized training environments across the Army, eliminate unnecessary duplication and allow for logical sustainment and integration planning,” he said.

Users must first funnel their requirements to TCM Gaming, which decides what game fits, and then to the Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI), which is responsible for acquiring the game. Since TCM Gaming views AA3 as nothing more than a superb recruiting tool, the game isn’t likely to be chosen.

Yet there is no official prohibition against using “America’s Army” or any indication that current users must switch to VBS2.

“AA3 is a highly effective recruiting game that has displayed remarkable low-cost training potential for specific scenarios,” said Army staff spokesman Lt. Col. Lee Packnett. “VBS2 is a robust platform that can simulate and give feedback on very complex scenarios.”

AA3 continues to gain customers in the Army and other services. Wardynski chuckled when asked if there had been pressure on Army customers to drop AA3 and use VBS2. “I will tell you that there is broad demand from government agencies for America’s Army 3, and these people have equal access to VBS2,” he said.

VBS2 was chosen by a selection board overseen by PEO STRI in Orlando, Fla., based on requirements formulated by TCM Gaming at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. There were 33 criteria that the selection board considered, according to PEO STRI spokeswoman Kristen Dooley McCullough. She said she could not identify specific criteria or the identities of the selection board. Bowen said the board comprised “technical and operational people from around the Army, including TRADOC, [Research and Development Command] and the operational Army.”

The requirements specified that the winning game be ready out of the box without further development. Wardynski argues this was unfair because AA3 can quickly respond to a customer’s needs. “‘America’s Army’ can build something in a day or two, because we own everything we do,” he said.

If the selection had been developmental, Barnett added, “we would have won hands down just because we have all the source code. We tried to explain to them up front that you’re never going to have a game where a customer won’t need something done.”

Bowen counters that all the contenders had an equal chance. “There was a demo plan. It wasn’t just write up some pretty documents and say you can do it,” he said. “Bring your stuff, the best you got, and prove to us you can meet the training requirements.”

Whatever the claims and counterclaims, what really counts is what the customer thinks. The Nuclear Biological Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle (NBC RV) trainer at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., uses “America’s Army” to train Stryker crews. Technical adviser Bruce Baldwin said he has seen VBS2 demonstrated, but is happy to stick with AA3. “When we were shown VBS2, we wondered: So this is the gaming of the future? How does ‘America’s Army’ fit into this?”

However, Raytheon’s operations research department evaluated “America’s Army” and VBS2, and chose the latter for analysis and experimentation, including a virtual environment for a Javelin missile trainer. Raytheon engineer Pat McCormack praised VBS2 for its user-friendly scenario editor and an artificial intelligence that knew tactical formations.

One Army simulations expert, who asked not to be identified, rated AA3 better on graphics, but preferred VBS2 overall for its real-time scenario editor, larger maps, much greater inclusion of vehicles, and better modeling of vegetation. “The AA editor is meant to be used by a developer, not the average Joe who is designing a training scenario,” the expert said.

So is there room in the Army for two first-person shooters? Perhaps the answer lies in the bifurcated nature of military training devices, split between those aimed at general training and those designed for instruction on specific systems, such as a TOW missile launcher. VBS2 is designed for general training, and it is being deployed in training suites at Army installations across the country.

“The artillery school at Fort Sill will train 20,000 soldiers over the next two years using VBS2,” Bowen said. “The operational units like Fort Hood and Fort Lewis, we provided them with one gaming suite. They went out and bought more on their own, and they still have a four-week backlog because there is not enough VBS2 out there.” Meanwhile, “America’s Army” seems to have carved itself a niche in training for specific systems such as CROWS and the NBC RV trainer.

Bohemia Interactive’s Morrison embraces a big-tent philosophy.

“The simulation industry is big enough to accommodate both products,” he said. “The military needs a range of serious game solutions and no one size fits all.”