
Kill Russian Soldiers, Win Points: Is Ukraine's New Drone Scheme Gamifying War? (bbc.com) 220
ABC News reports that Ukrainian drones struck Moscow last night — over 100 of them — closing all four of Moscow's international airports and diverting at least 134 planes. And Ukrainian commanders estimate that drones now account for 70% of all Russian deaths and injuries, according to the BBC — which means attacks on the front line are filmed, logged, and counted.
"And now put to use too, as the Ukrainian military tries to extract every advantage it can against its much more powerful opponent." Under a scheme first trialled last year and dubbed "Army of Drones: Bonus" (also known as "e-points"), units can earn points for each Russian soldier killed or piece of equipment destroyed. And like a killstreak in Call of Duty, or a 1970s TV game show, points mean prizes [described later as "extra equipment."]
"The more strategically important and large-scale the target, the more points a unit receives," reads a statement from the team at Brave 1, which brings together experts from government and the military. "For example, destroying an enemy multiple rocket launch system earns up to 50 points; 40 points are awarded for a destroyed tank and 20 for a damaged one."
Call it the gamification of war.
The article concludes that the e-points scheme "is typical of the way Ukraine has fought this war: creative, out-of-the-box thinking designed to make the most of the country's innovative skills and minimise the effect of its numerical disadvantage."
And "It turns out that encouraging a Russian soldier to surrender is worth more points than killing one," the article notes — up to 10x more, since "a prisoner of war can always be used in future deals over prisoner exchanges."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.
"And now put to use too, as the Ukrainian military tries to extract every advantage it can against its much more powerful opponent." Under a scheme first trialled last year and dubbed "Army of Drones: Bonus" (also known as "e-points"), units can earn points for each Russian soldier killed or piece of equipment destroyed. And like a killstreak in Call of Duty, or a 1970s TV game show, points mean prizes [described later as "extra equipment."]
"The more strategically important and large-scale the target, the more points a unit receives," reads a statement from the team at Brave 1, which brings together experts from government and the military. "For example, destroying an enemy multiple rocket launch system earns up to 50 points; 40 points are awarded for a destroyed tank and 20 for a damaged one."
Call it the gamification of war.
The article concludes that the e-points scheme "is typical of the way Ukraine has fought this war: creative, out-of-the-box thinking designed to make the most of the country's innovative skills and minimise the effect of its numerical disadvantage."
And "It turns out that encouraging a Russian soldier to surrender is worth more points than killing one," the article notes — up to 10x more, since "a prisoner of war can always be used in future deals over prisoner exchanges."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.
I remember what I was relieved... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I remember what I was relieved... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I remember what I was relieved... (Score:4, Funny)
But he says things I agree with!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I remember what I was relieved... (Score:5, Informative)
First thing Nazis did in 1933 was prohibit (gay) sex research, remove written publications, target transvestites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If we can reach that level of technology before we destroy ourselves, then we could be come that. Thing is, resources are still a scarcity and until we can literally convert energy into edible food and clothing, we're going to fight over them. Even if we get that technology, we'll still have limited land available. Ideally, we would begin to limit our species by choice because uncontrollable population would become a serious problem.
I'm just not optimistic enough about humanity to think the Star Trek Univer
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I remember what I was relieved... (Score:5, Informative)
Define communism.
Have you actually read Marx's manifesto or any of his other works? Did you understand them?
I have... a translated version anyway... and I did... the English translation, though I admit it may not live up to original German. And I would guesstimate that maybe only one in twenty people who use the words communist or communism have read Marx's little manifesto, much less understood any of it. And I don't just mean you and the rest of the MAGA types with your empty accusations. I also include the actual self-labeled "communists" and "socialists" I have known or met in my life. In fact, I would guesstimate that even fewer of the people who call themselves communists know what it means than the people dishing out false accusations. To most of the ones I have ever encountered; "communism" and "socialism" entail buying a $40 Che Guevara t-shirt from store or vendor on Telegraph Ave, entirely missing the irony, growing out dreadlocks, smoking a lot of pot, and hanging out in front of Blakes and Fat Slice pissing off their parents by throwing away their tuition money.
Communists and communism are stupid, sure. But so are the accusations of, hysterics about, and feeling threatened by, them.
Re: (Score:2)
It is always easy to find tons of pathetic losers that are willing to (fake) elevate themselves by looking down on some other group. Too many people are crap like that.
Re:I remember what I was relieved... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I remember what I was relieved... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a reason Russia is sparsely populated. About 70% of the country is north of the 49th parallel, which is the latitude that forms the northern border of the US. Canada, too, is sparsely populated, for the same reason: it's *cold*!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I remember what I was relieved... (Score:4, Informative)
First, Minnesota is south of the 49th parallel.
Second, your idea of "densely populated" seems interesting. My city, Houston, has more people than the entire state of Minnesota.
Texas has four such huge cities, giving it a population about 70% of the entire country of Canada, though Canada has more land area than the US. And yet, Texas has vast areas where almost nobody lives, since 70% of the population lives in 10% of the land area. It's hard to claim that even Texas is "densely populated."
I guess it's a matter of perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, agreed. Here in the US, we are now in great danger of falling into the same trap the Russians fell into. It's not as unthinkable as we might imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's more to be relieved about. The US accepted weapons grade fissionables and exchanged it at 1 to 7 for reactor grade. At the time, the mushy brains yelled and screamed that the US was "Giving away Uranium!". To be fair, the reporting that got them screaming did not mention the fact it involved trading in weapons grade (stuff that goes boom) for reactor grade (stuff that hums). Of course the wingnut media didn't report that - it wouldn't make their base scream in horror.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not understand the MAGA thinking, that somehow Ukraine invaded Russia.??
The powerful propaganda machine known as Fox feeds them a steady diet of fear and dopamine all day. All the other networks are talking about Epstein and Fox is harping on about Biden.
Re: (Score:3)
I do not understand the MAGA thinking, that somehow Ukraine invaded Russia.??
There is no MAGA "thinking". They just parrot whatever their great Führer tells them to think.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
, but Ukraine was a Nuclear Bomb Powerhouse.
Ukraine never had control of any nuclear weapons any more than Belgium has control of the US weapons stationed there. The weapons Ukraine "gave up" were stationed there by the Soviet Union and under the inherited control of the Russian military after the breakup of the Soviet Union. There were assurances made to Ukraine for its security. But Russia would have considered protecting Ukraine's neutrality and keeping it secure from becoming a western proxy part of that promise.
Ukraine also prefers peace. I think all Americans should back Ukraine. I do not understand the MAGA thinking, that somehow Ukraine invaded Russia.??
That ignores the actual history. T
Re: (Score:2)
>> What the war has demonstrated is the real threat Ukraine joining NATO posed to Russian security interests.
No it didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
>> What the war has demonstrated is the real threat Ukraine joining NATO posed to Russian security interests. No it didn't.
You might not consider the ability to attack their cities and nuclear deterrent a security threat. Have you heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That ignores the actual history. The current government of Ukraine overthrew its elected government.
that's not correct. the current government (zelensky, now long overdue but still in power because of martial law, extended every 90 days) was elected and won in a landslide with the promise to end the civil war and foster good relations with russia. it replaced the government of poroshenko (pro west) which was also elected by a very tiny margin with the promise to shelve the nato issue because of lack of popular support. poroshenko replaced the shortlived puppet government (turchynov) installed by the us de
Re: (Score:3)
he current government (zelensky, now long overdue but still in power because of martial law, extended every 90 days) was elected
Right. After a third of the country had seceded. The last election that included all of Ukraine was over a decade ago.
direct, open russian military involvement started in 2022
Not exactly, you are forgetting Crimea. But there clearly were Russians involved all along in the war in Donbas, albeit not flying the Russian flag.
Your basic point is correct. Russia did not pick up one day and suddenly decide to invade Ukraine. There was a long series of factors that lead to that decision. And its objectives at the start were likely far more limited than the current war's
in deathrace 2000 you get lots of points for killi (Score:2)
in deathrace 2000 you get lots of points for killing french
Re: (Score:2)
Re: in deathrace 2000 you get lots of points for k (Score:2)
You donâ(TM)t write like an American, and your capitalisation reminds me of certain other languages. Where were you born or emigrate from?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: in deathrace 2000 you get lots of points for (Score:2)
Do you work for ICE or are you just being a vigilante?
Re: (Score:2)
the French are the ones who are backing Ukraine the most.
They were the ones rhetorically backing Poland the most in World War II, to similar effect. Poland would have been better off allying themselves with the Soviet Union against the Nazi's. But they actually refused to allow Soviet troops to cross Poland to defend Czechoslovakia. Then took a little piece of it as their reward from Germany.
Of course they didn't keep that that little piece of Czechoslovakia for very long. About as long as Ukraine and Belarus held on to their little piece of Poland they got as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviet Union was an oligarchy. The Russian Federation devolved into a plutocracy. Not the same thing.
Though with Putin slowly robbing his allies or killing/imprisoning them, it's further devolving into a dictatorship.
Re: (Score:2)
When Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, America or other signatories of the memorandum did not take the responsibility to defend Ukraine. I don't know why this myth is still being repeated.
Re: (Score:2)
I was relieved when, back around 1997, Ukraine gave up their Nuclear weapons. They agreed to be a peaceful, and decent nation
It wasn't about Ukraine being a peaceful nation. It was about Ukraine selling basically every weapon in their inventory [youtube.com]. No one wanted the nuclear weapons to end up in the hands of terrorists. Russia did a better job of securing weapons than Ukraine.
America agreed to defend them in the case of a Russian invasion
The Budapest Memorandum was way too optimistic. It said the problem would be resolved in the UN.
Re: (Score:2)
Lesson to Iran. Have nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Trump runs his mouth a lot and tosses a lot of shit to see what will stick. He has no real convictions. He's not taking land. Watch and see.
Don't take this post as a defense of Trump. I just don't see the guy as having any real plan unless it's enriching himself. He's not taking over any foreign countries.
Re: (Score:2)
There's more to it than that. He (or his handlers) sees the US as beholden to China for minerals. So everywhere he sees mineral reserves, such as in Ukraine or Greenland, he communicates interest in securing those reserves.
Whats funny is if China spent decades securing those same reserves with bribes laundered through shell companies, most of Trump's critics wouldn't notice or care. China has already been caught using bribes to secure infrastructure deals in the EU.
https://www.politico.eu/articl... [politico.eu]
The ab
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I watch a WWII movie, I think: "war is bad". Even the Gulf war.. I think: "war is bad". Think if we could put all of that energy into feeding people, and giving people health care? We would be in the "Star Trek" world by now.
The problem with investing our energy in health care than the tools of war is that this has to be a universal goal or there will be someone that takes advantage of the situation to roll over the people that didn't make preparations to repel invaders. If you seek peace then prepare for war, am I right?
Every time I watch a WW2 documentary I am fascinated in how quickly technology advanced in such a short period of time. The start of WW2 was a war much like how WW1 ended, with big battleships duking it out i
Re: I remember what I was relieved... (Score:2)
I'll just point out that if we don't provide sufficient funds to a military force then that is effectively an invitation for war.
After Pearl Harbor, the question on everyone's mind was, "Why weren't we ready?" After many decades of peace, and only a few purely elective wars, the question on everyone's mind became, "Why are we wasting our money on this?"
That question drove the disarmement of the 90s and still rules the day. Believe me folks, it does. I have an courtside seat. I can tell.
My fear is that despite the wakeup calls, from 9/11 to Crimea to the Donbas, we'll be asking ourselves "why weren't we ready?" all over again before m
Re: (Score:2)
"why weren't we ready?"
Well there was this thing in 2001 and we all went a little crazy then the Bush admin took complete advantage of that and got us into basically Vietnam 2.0 via lies, blew out the debt to fund it, laid the foundation for the xenophobia and police state we are mired in currently and turned many generations and their entire political party against the idea of America as a force for democracy.
Now is there a lot more to that story and plenty of bad actors to go around sure but looking at the USA right now, I thin
Re: (Score:2)
All of history is perspective. I sort of doubt the Native Americans of the United States feel it was a "fair trade" to decimate their tribes, steal their land and put them on reservations in exchange for the Great USA of today.
Re: I remember what I was relieved... (Score:2)
Every square inch of habitable land is conquered territory. Some of it recently, the rest less recently. I don't think anyone owes natives' descendants an apology anymore than the Italians owe the French or the Spanish an apology for Caesar's conquests.
Re: (Score:2)
Well there was this thing in 2001 and we all went a little crazy then the Bush admin took complete advantage of that and got us into basically Vietnam 2.0 via lies,
If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, then Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. It's the mistake that keeps on giving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I remember what I was relieved... (Score:2)
What if we beamed in free uncensored internet and let the enemy's people talk freely amongst themselves and self-organize? Is it too dangerous, because our government fears the same thing happening here?
War is hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is propaganda designed to make Ukraine look bad. Oh they’re making a game over poor Russian soldiers invading a sovereign country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter whether they're doing it for medals, points or just their paycheck?
it's not unusual for soldiers to get bonuses for confirmed high value targets, "gamification" is just a convoluted way to do this. ofc to cash in you have to be alive for the next payout cycle.
otoh, war is just another way of doing politics, which is just another way of doing business.
Re: War is hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the summary you get 10X as many points for getting a soldier to surrender as for killing him. But it's not genocide to kill someone who's physically attacking you. Not even if you had the alternative of capturing him (which isn't usual).
Am I supposed to be outraged? (Score:2)
It’s a fucking war. The object is to kill. That’s more offensive to me than offering meaningless points. Oh and congrats on getting this Ukraine=bad propaganda piece posted.
More distractions from Epstein.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
She has no qualifications. She is an idiot.
These two properties are not (always) related.
Re: (Score:2)
DEI hire Pam Bondi.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Kash Patel was the Fbi director?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like you've already retired mentally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Motivated people with lots of external support tend to win. Remember Vietnam. (I suppose one could reasonably argue that the North Vietnamese were freer than the South Vietnamese, but that's not the opinion the US press ever had.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and congrats on getting this Ukraine=bad propaganda piece posted.
wait a sec. are you really saying that the bbc (no less) is spreading anti ukraine propaganda now? https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]
please hit me on the head with a dead fish, i must be hallucinating. they had been barely starting to very subtly question zelensky and hinting at the remote possibility that maybe, just maybe, they lost this (part of the) war ...
btw, i'm somehow very happy that you have no fucking clue about what fucking wars are all about. on the other hand, that's also quite sad.
Flawed moral axiom (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the idea that "gamifying war" is bad?
it isn't, really. it isn't even fundamentally new, it's just a new twist on an already common practice. but it's not good "étiquette" as it somehow seems to trivialize killing, so it triggers suerficial and emotional brains. in other words, it's good clickbait.
The Ukraine is advancing miltech to the next level (Score:4, Insightful)
Anybody in the west not terminally stupid needs to make sure that (a) they win and (b) they are then willing to share that tech.
Yes, I know the US leadership does not have anybody on the "not terminally stupid" class at this time. But European leaders need to begin to take this really seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great way to start a third world war against a nuclear armed country.
Sure, get the kids to pilot the drones (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Starship Troopers
Worries about this already existed (Score:2)
I've seen stories worrying about "gamifying war" since the US military started moving heavily into drone warfare - so for a couple decades at least.
What the Ukranians have done is, of necessity, figured out how to take advantage of technical advancements and do it cheaply, effectively, and en masse - unlike the US, where the military has had carte blanche for-bloody-ever and don't even bother to think about doing anything cheaply (a million dollars to kill one guy? No problem!).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you agree, that the Defense Department budget should be cut?
I suspect the US military budget could be cut by a *lot*... but I think those decisions should be based on a non-partisan, as-objective-as-possible, thorough analysis of what the country actually needs to spend in order to defend itself and to participate in the defense of its allies.
Unfortunately I don't think that's likely to happen, regardless of the party in power. Trump and his sycophants arguably have made the situation worse, but it's not exactly a new problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Game Theory "is" war. (Score:3)
Nothing new in the clickbait article.
Several years ago (yes, I am that old) during the Cold War the US Navy realized their Submarine 'random course' techniques were predicable.
(Really, didn't they realize this back in WW2?)
The solution ended up being literally to base the course change on a roll of dice.
My favorite book about those times is "Blind Mans Bluff" https://submarinebooks.com/bli... [submarinebooks.com]
Rewarding good performance (Score:2)
And? (Score:3)
That's how you win wars. To quote General Patton: “No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.”
Considering all the atrocities Russia committed and continues to commit against Ukraine, this doesn't even register.
Soldiers have always tallied their kills (Score:2)
In the old days, it was tick marks on the wall or plane, notches on their weapons, trophies, medals, scalps, feathers in headbands.
Gamifying war is not new.
Re: (Score:2)
how to completely miss the point of a story? :-)