I linked to one article as an example, a couple more below.
I keep seeing superficial, positive coverage about this system and it has been bothering me for awhile because it seems like an awful idea. Sure reward your most talented personnel but also only rewarding what you can measure, especially in war is a horrendous idea in my opinion…
Rewarding and valuing only what you can most easily measure is a reliable route to self imposed disaster and ineffective optimization.
This system goes a long way towards over-emphasizing drones as well to a degree that is dangerous to good doctrine, any impact that isn’t neatly quantifiable like a drone clip becomes a liability and blindspot to this approach it seems to me.
What about units that aren’t getting enough support and resources to be effective? Does rewarding them less make them more effective…?
Certainly empowering soldiers to get the equipment they want and are requesting is great, but the idea of making this like Call Of Duty is weird to me where only the people currently experiencing success are rewarded, it will breed toxic institutions obsessed with maximizing gain to the exclusion of all else like those that are strangling the US.
I am sure I am getting an incomplete picture, but it seems worrying from what I can see.
I really don’t like the idea of game-ifying war and I agree with your critiques and think you bring up a good point about non-pointed aspects of the military could potentially become ignored.
That being said, I think the system is here to stay and will be implemented worldwide. I think the system reduces/prevents/solves a couple major issues.
The first being: pics or it didn’t happen, prevents false reporting up the chain of command. Allows for actually well performing soldiers being promoted (with a paper trail) rather than those who only claim to be. Also allows higher ups to make war plans based on real, not falsified Intel. My understanding is Russia has a massive issue with this, but all/most former Soviet-bloc countries struggle with this more than average.
Another aspect is quick feedback/iteration on weapons and systems by users is a major improvement in my eyes. Instead of a soldier having to blindly use whatever they are given, they can make the choice that’s best for them. This allows real end users to talk amongst themselves to find the best options.
A third point kind of overlaps with the others, analytics. With all the accurate information going into the system and getting real feedback from soldiers, better analysis of situations and events can be achieved. This can allow for better future planning and strategizing, as they have more accurate data to work from and the data doesn’t lose accuracy playing ‘telephone’ up the chain of command.
Something I just thought of is its potential effect on morale. I can imagine there are many situations where soldiers may feel they are being overlooked by higher ups. With a point system they have direct feedback on how they are doing and how it relates to other units (potentially reduce disgruntled-ness). Also, maybe it could expand to nonmilitary “luxury” items. For example, unit is defending a bunker for months, it sucks, but they almost have enough “points” to get their unit a console to play in their downtime (improving morale).
I feel like you are definitely right about losing non-measured aspects. I think there will definitely be many iterations on this system and they will eventually, at least partially, be able to get those aspects into the ‘analysis’.
To your question about units not getting enough support, my understanding was the rewards system is on top a base level of support. Which I’m sure still allows for “winners” (more effective units) to keep winning and “losers” (less effective units) to still struggle much more, but I think the system is going to be better than the previous system.
Regarding the intel/feedback/analytics points, with the technology they use they can get all of that without gamifying the rewards, can’t they?
Yes, but I’m not sure it will be to the same extent.
I think gamifying the setup leads to internal competition that will push them harder to make sure there is evidence of their results. That may have them make questionable decisions that they wouldn’t otherwise, if they didn’t need the evidence dog their efforts.
Additionally, I suspect the public points system cuts back on disgruntled-ness, as units can easily see how they compare to others. It also allows them to see who to talk to, to see how to improve their results.
So, pros and cons to the gamification, but I think the pros are going to win out. I doubt that’s a good thing though…
I agree with your critiques and think you bring up a good point about non-pointed aspects of the military could potentially become ignored.
Not could, will this isn’t a potential phenomena that may occur, it is part and parcel to quantifying things that you ignore the things you cannot quantify easily. It is unescapable the second you begin to take data, which is another way of saying that the idea that data can be non-biased is inherently absurd.
This is a major struggle in any kind of performance review in almost any area of human endeavor and if it isn’t recognized explicitly and loudly that the metrics do not capture the reality and that the map is not the territory than it begins to very quickly degrade effectiveness and rationality in an organization.
i don’t think the other troops are receiving no support. this is just a way to distribute a bonus efficiently
I have had the same thought. Even if they had very good results with this system I would still think it’s icky
I distinctly remember growing up playing COD and getting an air strike or predator drone because of a killstreak and thinking “Damn this would be so fucked up if this was how higher ups decided to support you with backup or not in actual war”.
I would not have believed you at the time if you told me this would become a real system.
I am sure the intended function isn’t for crucial backup support but rather for longterm acquisition of equipment that helps increase tactical effectiveness, but still it seems icky to me as well.
war is icky by its very nature. It promotes weapons and tactics that make killing more efficient, because that helps you win.
If a points based logistics system makes killing more efficient it will become more widespread, simple as that.
This is a maximally incorrect assumption, the most effective strategies are not guranteed to proliferate in war, this is why “doctrine” is heavily emphasized in military history and wargaming.
War is more about politics and culture than it is about truth. Truth only comes in at the very end for most…
The profession of war is about far more than “killing efficiently” and it requires 49 people to do a boring thing or post up in a spot they end up not being needed just so that 50th person can be in the right place with the right support to make the crucial difference (and that is before you even bring logistics into the conversation). You can’t atomize down war into individual soldiers and how effective they are at killing and if you do you will create a military that does not work together and in which every individual is only looking to maximize the destruction they do themselves, not participate in a broader combined arms practice that most efficiently dismantles the enemy. I mean this is a poor example but even if you just play a semi-realistic wargame fps (NOT arcadey games like Call Of Duty) it becomes very obviously very quickly that in team games the “kill/death ratio” of players is fairly meaningless towards their impact unlike a hollywood style shooter that is all about making the player feel like a god of violence.
If you only reward that 50th person than you undermine the entire system that created that success by artificially focusing on only the visible part of the process that created a shocking piece of content. You need those other 49 people to do the boring thing, to show up to the place that is unlikely to be a flashpoint, so that the person who gets unlucky/“lucky” with that diceroll and is headed right into a cauldron will get the most support and possibility of success as is feasible with the operation. I don’t think putting everyone in a mindset where they have to be produce content to be materially supported during war is most conducive to creating those conditions.
Also I want to emphasize I don’t know the nitty gritty details of the system Ukraine uses, so I understand I am just speculating at whatever the system actually is in practice for Ukraine based on this limited coverage and also that this is something all militaries struggle with to some degree or another so this isn’t about bashing Ukraine.
Ukraine didn’t roll this out all at once on a whim.
They tested it on small sections of the front, saw that it was effective and rolled it out to more sections. This has been slowly in the making for years.
They also don’t do their entire logistics on this point based system, it’s a supplimentary mechanism.
You’re way too focused on ivory tower philosophizing.
