Case Study- Virtual BattleSpace 3 (VBS3)

Virtual Battlespace 3 (VBS3) is a comprehensive desktop training package based on commercial video game technology. VBS3 is used by defense and security organizations worldwide for tactical training, experimentation and mission rehearsal.

Introduction

Section IX(Instructional Strategies), Chapter 33 of Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, Van Eck, Shute, and Rieber outline four principles they believe to be core factors when designing instructional games. VBS3 is a simulation product used by the US Army to provide Units, Leaders, and Soldiers valuable training on a myriad of systems, weapons, and situation excercies. The software enables instructors to recreate dynamic, realistic training environments for Soldiers to practice critical task, drills, and processes.

Learning Should Be Goal-Oriented.

Games have a goal/unknown which requires the learner to generate new knowledge. Games (at least, good ones) also have a value to the learner in achieving the goal (Van Eck ,2018). This is probably the strongest feature of the VBS training suite. It is both comprehensive and modular. The training objectives are fully customizable. A trainer can load a simple land navigation training module where the objective is very clear: find the points using your skills and processes you learned in the classroom. It can also be used in more complex ways. VBS3 can be used in conjunction with guntruck mock-ups and VR headsets or immersive screens to simulate a mounted patrol. It can also be used to simulate combat operations at the brigade or division level. The training audience is given their mission, to include things like Rule-of-Engagement or critical tasks, prior to starting the simulation and an After Action Review is used to evaluate their performance using doctrinal performance measures.

Learning Should Be Active and Interactive.

The problems for a game should be designed as a complete case first, then have key elements removed. Those missing pieces should be distributed across multiple resources. Solving the problems should require that the player seek out different resources throughout the game (Van Eck ,2018). Another way VBS is utilized is for Command Post exercises. Users assume roles in which they control specific units and capabilities or perform staff roles updating the commander on various actions and intelligence that are playing out in the scenarios. Prior to such exercises, events are “scripted” to test and challenge the participants and will trigger different branches and sequences of events based on how the unit reacts (or doesn’t) to what is happening. A holistic approach is used in scenario design. The system is designed to replicate the actual systems used to communicate or display information and tests the Unit’s ability to interpret and disseminate the information. Peters asks us, “When you have no choice but to teach the user how to use your interface, how can you integrate this training into the program, aligning it with progress and achievements, instead of treating it as separate(Peters, 2013)?”

Learning Should Provide Adaptive Challenge and Support.

Challenge and support should also be adaptive in the sense that behavior patterns and actions (like the evidence model that we refer to in the final section of this chapter does) within the game may trigger support or challenge options. For example, too much elapsed time since the last action and repeatedly exploring dead-end branches of the game may trigger (authentic!) intervention (Van Eck ,2018). In the more complex applications of the VBS, Soldiers learn through war-gaming the importance of fluid communication across the staff and Commanders have the opportunity to validate and improve staff processes in order to make more effective decisions. Peters further supports this adaptability model by telling us to have interface complexity evolve with learner progress. Games have nearly perfected the art of progressive disclosure. This means they introduce options and rules gradually, only after a learner is comfortable with the current state (Peters, 2013). If a Unit is fairly unstressed, trainers will inject more variable to the scenario. If a Unit is struggling, the VBS operators may delay certain events in order to take a “tactical pause” to facilitate a teaching point or not even give them the variable at all.

Learning Should Incorporate Feedback.

Every action in the game should result in some form of feedback, but the nature of that feedback should again be contextualized and authentic(Van Eck, 2018). When used as a weapons simulator the feedback is direct and immediate. The user either hit the target or didn’t. They also receive quantitative analysis and evaluations. In the more complex situational applications of the VBS, the feedback comes in the form of AI controlled enemy actions or perhaps changes in supply levels because you didn’t anticipate logistics needs. In realistic simulations, the consequences of poor decisions can be embedded into the game realistically but safely(Peters, 2013). Bluntly put, in VBS the feedback you receive might be the loss of half of your company on a convoy because you didn’t use the information provided and failed to anticipate the ambush on that route.

Conclusion

VBS is swiss-army knife for valuable, diverse training for the military. It allows repeated practice of tasks and processes. The virtual nature of the training saves time and money versus planning the real-world equivalent of such training. The greatest value may be in the risk it mitigates. Whether it’s a rifle range, a combat live-fire exercise, or a combat patrol, those lessons and consequences are always better learned in a safe virtual environment rather than the real world.

References

Bohemia Interactive Simulations. (2018, June 11). What is VBS3: Versatile Desktop Training & Simulation Software [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad_xFWtutNY&t=88s

Peters, D. (2013). Interface design for learning: design strategies for learning experiences. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.

Van Eck, R. N., Shute, V. J., & Rieber, L. P. (2018). Leveling up: Game design research and practice for instructional designers. Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, 277-283.