So, folks...

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

I want you to take a look at this footage from Polaris and Cable's session this evening. I've given you all access, even the trainees, from whom I'm particularly interested in hearing. The reason it goes black abruptly would be because someone decided that cutting power to the Danger Room was a suitable way to end the scenario. (Hands up if anyone else sees the lack of field applicability for the 'shutting off the world' tactic?) Also, I wasn't able to clean up the audio properly, so what they're saying to each other isn't always audible over the gunfire and so forth. I'll just say that they were doing entirely too much talking, from my perspective in the control booth.



1) Opinions on the approach they took? Notice that they didn't start doing serious damage to the drones until nearly the end-of-scenario. Trainees, any thoughts on why?
2) Watching the footage cold, what do you think the purpose of the scenario was? (Nathan, Lorna, no explaining.) Based on your best guess, were their tactical choices appropriate?
3) Any observations on their level of teamwork?
4) Thoughts on the powers-applications they demonstrated?
5) Look at the readings I attached on their power usage. Notice any spikes? What were the results?
6) Put yourself in the scenario with them; what would your role have been?

Keep any comments constructive, people; questions are also more than welcome, whether it's for me (since I designed the scenario) or for the two who ran it. Trainees, you especially should feel free to ask as many questions as you like, as always.

Nathan, Lorna? Whatever does come out of the conversation - and I know I can trust you to take criticism well - I'll just reiterate that you both did pretty well, especially since you're both just getting off injured reserve. I do however want self-assessments on the subject of whether or not you figured out the purpose of the scenario that I didn't mention in the initial description.

Comments

[x-juggernaut.livejournal.com]

Well, according to the report - zero friendly casualties, all enemy units taken out. That's a win, no matter what the tactics.

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

Then you'd probably be surprised to know that if I was handing out letter grades (and not taking into account the fact that this was the first heavy scenario for both of them) I'd have given them a D. Borderline pass.

[x-juggernaut.livejournal.com]

Well, if the objective was for them to fail it - it looks like you were disappointed. From what I can tell from the footage - neither Cable or Polaris is at top physical condition, and you kept ramping up the intensity. But they didn't break, and both of them walked out of there under their own power.

If that's "borderline" pass, I'd say the grading scale's skewed.

[x-gambit.livejournal.com]

Since I get these reports, I might as well chime in.

Basic operational training; if you're in a no-win situation, you change the dynamics of the situation. Or, in other words, cheat. Because there are no correct answers in the real world.

That being said, Summers, intel is going to need between six to ten hours a week booked for the Danger Room. The more flexible we can keep the hours, the better. Let me know how that fits into with the rest of the X-units training.

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

The 'borderline' pass would be because they forgot they weren't supposed to be treating the drones like drones. (Look, there I go answering one of my own questions...)

[x-cypher.livejournal.com]

Trainee chiming in.

1. My only guess is that they were instructed to use a minimum of force, incapacitate without destroying. As the difficulty ramped up, maintaining that fine control obviously became more difficult.

2. All I can come up with is a straight survival scenario. Do unto them before they can do unto you, with a steadily ramping difficulty level. Not sure if I can speak to their tactical choices, as I'm not entirely sure my guess about the purpose of the scenario is correct.

3. It seemed like they were doing an okay job of dividing targets at the beginning of the scenario, but as the difficulty went up and the situation became more complicated, teamwork died down a bit in the drive to stay standing.

4. The only powers application I hadn't really given much thought to previously was Polaris' using metal to create an outer layer of armor, which appeared to help her hand-to-hand as well as providing additional protection against the weaponry of the drones.

5. Need to come back to this one after looking at the readings and matching it to the footage.

6. Um, besides the obvious "stay the heck out of the way"?

So, questions. At some point do we get to find out what the purpose of the scenario was? And why they would have only gotten a D for their performance?

[x-cable.livejournal.com]

Oversimplifying things, Remy. If that had been a real-world combat situation, maybe. If it had been a riot control situation dealing with civilians, Lorna and I both would have deserved an F, never mind a D.

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

Schedule for the next month's in your inbox. If you need more flexible than what's available, we can juggle anything but the trainee slots.

[x-juggernaut.livejournal.com]

Hostiles are hostiles. You didn't include civilians in the scenario, so from all appearances, they took out what was trying to take them out. I'm not seeing where this isn't an obvious win.

[x-gambit.livejournal.com]

I guess I don't see the validity of the exercise. People don't respond like the Danger Room, and training to handle a riot against a thinking machine is not applicable against a crowd of people. Different reactions, different dynamics.

Then again, the Agency was far more focused on infield training than created scenarios in any case, so I guess I don't really have the experience to judge.

[x-gambit.livejournal.com]

No, I don't mind making Betsy and Jake work odd hours. Keeps them from that burning on the job romance they've been planning.

[x-juggernaut.livejournal.com]

1: In agreement. Taking that into mind, if it's an object lesson about using nonlethal force - I'd say they succeeded in learning that pulling your punches is only going to get you killed when things get that intense.

2: Barring the presence of noncombat drones or areas identified as civilian sectors, it seems more like a skills drill than anything else. Cable found a way to beat the drill by taking advantage of a weakness in the system. He's done it before in real-world situations, and this time didn't put himself in the infirmary in the process.

3: Agreed. Communication seemed to break down for some reason. Good target coordination at first, things seem to break down once they start arguing - I'll put ten bucks that it wasn't about the scenario.

4: Pretty much standard manipulate/disable breaking down into brute force smashing at the end. Use of shields seemed easier for Cable, but Polaris has the advantage of having physical shields that take less concentration.

5: No clue how to interpret this.

6: Assuming the drones were hostile - take fire, distract and disable hostiles, enable rest of team to engage civilians (if present) and get out of the AO. Standard operating procedure.

[x-cable.livejournal.com]

It's a question of what can and can't be duplicated in the training context. Playing with the level of consensual reality, based on how much information you're supplied going in, can be fruitful in the post-exercise review, too. Makes you think about the tactical choices, rather than just react. Of course that can also train in hesitation, but that's an argument Scott and I have had before and will probably have again.

Still, I would have given my left arm for something like the Danger Room while I was running training exercises for my field teams at Mistra.

Just a couple of quick thoughts

[x-jetstream.livejournal.com]

As my morning is somewhat busy.

1) They were working well together until the heat got turned up. Then their ability to coordinate withered in the face of the pressure.

2) Seems obvious to me. You don't put our two biggest hitters in the Danger Room and expect the room to give them any sort of a workout. The drones were a form of stress. You were looking for stress-reactions and partnership exercises.

3) They worked well when they were coasting, but when the pressure was applied and the difficulty went up, their team-work collapsed.

4) Not my area of expertise, really. But I'd say that they performed tolerably well given the limits they were operating under. Although I would like to remind people _again_ that the world has three maneuverable dimensions, not just two. To make things worse, they turtled.

5) The spikes tell the real story here. When the pressure went on, they started jerking all over the place. No nice steady output curves here, but nasty little jaggies. Take a look at this graph here of magnetic flux to drone deployments. Should tell the whole story right there. And has Moira or Hank found a way to detect and track telekinetic output yet?

6) To not get pulped, likely. I'd have gone aloft and acted as a spotter, to coordinate their fire and keep the team-work moving along.

Jetstream
XO of X-Men Black

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

1. Actually, no, they weren't. Why would they have tried to use a minimum of force anyway?

2. If it is, what do you think?

3. See any relationship between what you mentioned in your answer to question 1 about fine control and this?

6. Actually, interesting point - given how little cover there was and how much trouble Cable and Polaris were having shielding themselves, how would you have gone about doing that?

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

Hostiles are hostiles, yes. Should we generally be blowing them into their component parts?

[x-cypher.livejournal.com]

1. Like I said. Incapacitate/disable without destroying/killing. If that was one of the mission parameters, which it wasn't, as you said.

2. If it was a 'do unto others before they do unto you' with no stipulation about power levels, they shouldn't have been so coy in the beginning and simply started smashing things as early and from as far as possible.

3. Yes. Fine control and teamwork are easy to maintain in relatively stress-free situations, but as the stress levels go up, it becomes correspondingly more difficult.

6. Find some way to change the conditions and find cover. High ground, low ground, somehow use terrain to create cover.

[x-juggernaut.livejournal.com]

If it's a "them or us" situation, yes. Looking at the numbers here - that's one hundred and seventy drones. I don't think one hundred and seventy ANYTHING are ever attacking by accident. Something tries to kill you, you kill it first, simple as dirt.

There's a reason the military teaches "shoot to kill" rather than "shoot to wound". The first is a lot more certain than the second, and causes less hesitation. You can see in the video - the moment they hesitate, things ramp up and they start to fall apart. Cable even mentioned it - training hesitation and overthinking is what gets folks hurt or killed.

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

1) So even versatility has its limits, doesn't it?

2) Actually, the Room is perfectly capable of giving them a workout if I program it properly, but you're right. This was all about the stress-reactions.

3) Draw up a more detailed assessment of this, by the way - I'll ask Sam and Kurt to do the same.

4) You and I should actually talk about that. See if we can come up with something that would encourage those who could operate in three dimensions but don't to start incorporating that a little more.

6) Pretty much. There was an additional element, like I said, but I'm still waiting to see if Lorna and Nathan guess it themselves.

They both have highly versatile powers

[x-jetstream.livejournal.com]

But versatility without control and without imagination is an empty gun.

3) Expect it in your in-box by close of business today.

4) Force 'em to get up off the ground! Lorna should, by all rights, be able to use her power to float, if not actually fly. Ditto Nathan. Of course, challenging them like that is difficult. Bears some thinking on. Next Command Staff meeting, I'd like to put this on the agenda. Kick it around, see what we can come up with. Right now, I'm drawing a blank.

Haroun

[x-tarot.livejournal.com]

1. Given that both Lorna and Nathan did not start doing serious damage to the drones until the end, as you said, it seems to me that the only answer would be that they were told not to, or had some other reason to believe that causing severe damage would be unwise. Given a lack of targets that resembeled people, I would guess that the initial objective was to keep damage to a minimum.

2. I believe the purpose was to stay standing, and do as little broad destruction as possible. Perhaps to do as much as possible from as far away as possible.

3. At first, they seemed to work together well, in so much as they took turns and did not compete for targets, though I cannot tell how much they were communicating. I am not sure if 'sharing' the drones in equal numbers is cooperative and appropiate team work. If one of the pair could have better spent their time shielding the other while the first did the bulk of the actual damage? (Mr. Summers? Am I permitted to use extra resources if I think I can figure out what they were saying? If so - Doug? Can you read lips?)

4. If the objective was to stay out of direct combat, could Lorna have coated the non-metal drones with metal and moved them that way? Rather than coating her hands and punching them?

5. Mathmatical analysis is not at all my strong suit, but it seems to me that the harder the scenario got, the less regular and gradual the spikes got.

6. Provide cover and concealment. If people with greater offensive capability are in a scenario with me, my power is best suited to give them a safer and less open area to fight from.

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

We're not the military, Cain. And like I've told Nathan every time he's growled at me over the coffeemaker on the subject, there are times that we need to overthink in the field. Even we wind up paying for it.

Going into situations with a kill or be killed mentality might be simpler, and a lot safer, but what we do usually isn't that simple. And shouldn't be.

[x-cyclops.livejournal.com]

3) Thank you.

4) Putting it on the agenda as we speak.

[x-juggernaut.livejournal.com]

If it's the decision between "bring your people home alive" and "try not to kill anyone" - you choose the first over the second. Always. Anything else is poor leadership.

[x-cable.livejournal.com]

... Scott, I'd tell you were a bastard, but that's what you're supposed to be, so it would be redundant.

Lorna, did you guess that we were supposed to be having flashbacks?