Test Plan for MWiF (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message


Greyshaft -> Test Plan for MWiF (6/2/2005 12:30:53 PM)

One issue I've seen in the games I've betatested - Europa Universalis, Flashpoint Germany and small bits of Empires in Arms - is that the "testing" seems composed of lots of enthusiastic volunteers playing the game till they find a bug which the programmer then fixes. Anyone whose ever worked in software development knows that there are more effective and more efficient ways to do this but most of the time they involve less fun for the tester.

Professional Software Testing involves the following steps:
1. Write a test plan and make sure that the test plan covers all possibilities.
2. Run the test plan on the application and document all bugs,
3. When the programmer has released a new version of the code then rerun the SAME test plan.

So lets consider a test plan for amphibious combat in MWiF... say the allied attack on a Normandy hex.
1. Write a list of all possible game options which might affect this (divisional units? artillery units?)
2. Write a list of all possible attack combinations (include naval support? include opposed airpower? include unopposed airpower? do it on a hex with a German division? do it on an empty hex? notional defender? do it on a hex with a German infantry and an Italian fighter?)
3. Run through the tests that you have listed and document the results.

If you found a bug then you report it, the bug gets fixed and then you run through the SAME series of tests on the next edition of the code - even running through the tests that passed the first time in case a regression bug has appeared. It's serious stuff and it requires self discipline. No reason that you can't have enjoy doing it, but the important part is that the Testing gets done. Deciding that you're tired of invading Normandy isn't an excuse to unilaterally change the Test Plan. It just means someone else has to take over and do the work.

I've started developing a Test Plan for MWIF (I do this sort of thing in my day job so there's a fair degree of thinking going into this). I'd like to know people who are willing to help write test plans for MWiF. I can provide the templates and the advice. Anyone else who wants to take the software testing part of MWiF seriously is more than welcome to get on board and help in co-ordinating this idea.

Just remember that at the end of it all Matrix is under no obligation to use the work that we have done.






Froonp -> RE: Test Plan for MWiF (6/2/2005 5:08:40 PM)

I find the idea interesting, and would like to participate so something alike, but for the moment there is no MWiF to test upon, so this may be a little soon for this, isn't it ? What can we do without the smallest idea of how the software will be ?

Regards

Patrice




coregames -> RE: Test Plan for MWiF (6/2/2005 6:06:31 PM)

This kind of testing is obviously important, but isn't "playtesting" per se. What you're asking is for the forum to help Matrix develop a thorough test plan; I would be willing to do that, although I don't know what goes into such a process. This is in addition to traditional playtesting, right? All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy...

p.s., did you notice that this thread marks your "post of the beast" Greyshaft? [sm=00000612.gif]




Greyshaft -> RE: Test Plan for MWiF (6/3/2005 12:32:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
...but for the moment there is no MWiF to test upon, so this may be a little soon for this, isn't it ? What can we do without the smallest idea of how the software will be ?

We can do an enormous amount. My next post will list some of the tasks

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
This kind of testing is obviously important, but isn't "playtesting" per se. What you're asking is for the forum to help Matrix develop a thorough test plan; I would be willing to do that, although I don't know what goes into such a process. This is in addition to traditional playtesting, right? All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy...

...but all play and no work makes MWiF an unproven product. There's no reason not to have fun with MWiF but we do need to ensure that all parts of it are thoroughly tested. How would you feel if the Test Team for Ford's latest car were having so much fun driving around the test track at high speed that they didn't get around to testing the door latches? You'd think [sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif] and [:@] and [sm=00000023.gif] and possibly [sm=00000106.gif] on all the [sm=crazy.gif] who did the testing and released the product. I'm sure that none of us want that for MWiF so we need to put in the hard yards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
p.s., did you notice that this thread marks your "post of the beast" Greyshaft? [sm=00000612.gif]

Actually I did notice that, but I figured I already was excommunicated from the congregation because of my desire to include PBEM and an AI so I kept quiet lest my door be broken down by villagers armed with pitchforks and flaming torches [:)]




Greyshaft -> MWiF Test Cases - Rules sections 1 & 2 (6/3/2005 1:55:23 AM)

Here is a first pass at identifying test cases for sections 1 and 2 of the rules. I have attached the zipped Word doc. It is named as a .txt file so you need to:
* download the file
* rename it to a .zip file
* unzip the file
* read the resulting Word document


Note that these are not the actual Test case documents... that would take the form of a Table with the following fields:
* Test ID (unique Test Case ID)
* Test Section (what section of the game is being tested
* Test Parameters (how should the game be configured for this test - what options should be set?)
* Test Instructions ( eg "Click on a German HQ sitting on a Rail Hex then attempt to move it by rail")
* Expected Result ("Unit moves by Rail")
* Actual Result (Pass/Fail)

Each of these possible test cases would need an owner who accepts the responsibility for testing that MWiF works as planned in that area. This doesn't mean that every test is run after every release of code, but rather that the tester is the resident guru on that portion of the game and accepts a leading role in testing for any bugs in that area.


Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
1.1 Rules 3
1.2 Scale 3
1.3 Markers 3
2. General concepts 3
2.1 Terrain 3
2.2 Zones of control 4
2.3 Stacking 5
2.4 Supply 5
2.5 Control 7
2.6 Fractions 8
2.7 Dice 8
2.8 Range 8


1. Introduction
1.1 Rules
1.2 Scale
1.3 Markers
Confirm that it is not possible to add more markers than the game limit for:
· entry markers (see 13.3),
· forts (AfA/MiF option 5),
· synth oil plants (AfA option 14) and
· Task Force markers (SiF Option 21).
2. General concepts
2.1 Terrain
· In all cases check that units movement allowance is properly decremented as it moves.
· Check for unit disruption where appropriate.
2.1.1 Hexes & hex-dots
Move units to check adjacency for hexes that:
· share a common hexside;
· are on either side of the join between the eastern European map and the Asian map and share the same number. They are actually connected via the hexside on the Asian map bearing the same number as the hex on the east European map.
· AsA option 1: The same applies if you are using the Scandinavian map (letters differentiate the hexes/ hexsides).
· AfA option 1: The above is also true for the northern border of the African map. However, the eastern edge of the African map has a hex for hex correspondence with the Asian map (i.e. the hexes with the same letter are in fact the same hex, see below). Any map-edge hex-dot on the Africa map connects to any other in the same sea-area on the American, Asian or Pacific maps.
· are off-map hexes connected to each other by a rail line or a grey communication line (exception: the Perm to E0148 rail); or
· are situated that one is an off-map hex and the other is either an on-map edge hex connected to it by a rail line or a grey communication line or an on-map hex, on the map’s edge, which is adjacent to a connected on-map hex.
Check units movement is properly affected by
· Moving Land units into sea hexdots / impassable hexsides
· Moving naval units into non-sea hexes / through enemy controlled straits / into off-map boxes.
2.1.2 Sea areas
Check adjacency for naval units moving through the following territory:
· Two sea areas are adjacent if they share a common sea area border or if they are directly connected by a blue communication line. Some sea areas on the west European and Pacific maps contain statements that they are connected to one or more sea areas on the USA minimap. The connected sea areas are also adjacent.
· The Mozambique Channel and the Azanian Sea (both on the Asian map) are connected. Treat hexdot ‘O’ as being connected to the hexdot south of hex ‘U’ by a blue communication line.
· The Red Sea is the only sea area that is on 2 maps. The sea-box is only on the east European map but the hex-dot on the Asian map is still part of the same sea area. The hex-dot on the Asian map is adjacent to the large hex-dot at the eastern end of the sea area on the east European map.
2.1.3 Off-map areas
· Grey communication lines – Check operation : Only land and aircraft units can move along grey communication lines. Some grey communication lines are shown as railways. You can move along these lines normally as well as by rail.
· Blue communication lines - Check operation : Only aircraft and naval units (and their cargoes) can move along blue communication lines.
o A naval unit moves along blue communication line from sea area to sea area.
o An aircraft unit moves along a blue communication line from any adjacent hex-dot in the first sea area to an adjacent hex-dot in the second sea area (see 14.1.2). If it’s not clear which hex-dots are adjacent to a blue communication line, the nearest ones always are.
2.1.4 The American minimap
2.2 Zones of control
Confirm that zone of control affects :
o supply (see 2.4),
o garrison values (see 9.5),
o railroad movement (see 11.10),
o land movement (see 11.11),
o notional units (see 11.14),
o retreat after combat (see 11.16.5),
o reorganisation (see 11.18.2),
o the transport of resources and build points (see 13.6.1),
o breaking down (see 22.4.1), and
o the placement of :
o off-city reinforcements (see 4.2),
o partisans (13.1),
o fortifications (22.4.9) and
o synthetic oil plants (22.4.11).

Confirm units ZOC is affected by whether it is a :
o Partisan
o A unit that invaded (see 11.14) or
o paradropped (see 11.15)
o Divisions or artillery (only ever have ZOCs into their own hex.)
o Supply units (have no ZOCs.)
Confirm that ZOCs don’t extend:
o into, or out of, off-map hexes; or
o into the notional hexes represented by hex-dots; or
o across alpine hexsides; or
o across all-sea hexsides; or
o across lake (except when frozen), or straits, hexsides; or
o into a hex controlled by a major power or minor country, on the other side that the unit is not at war with; or
o Option 20: (Surprised ZoCs) from a surprised unit.

Confirm that ZOCs work in accordance with Option 4: (Pacific & Asian ZoCs) You need either an HQ or 2 other (non-PART) corps or army units in a hex to exert a ZOC into an adjacent hex on the Asian or Pacific map (AfA/AiF/AsA Option 1: or African, American or Scandinavian map).
2.3 Stacking
2.3.1 Limits
Confirm that units that can’t co-operate (see 18.1)
o can’t stack together in the same hex.
o can stack together in the same sea-box.
Attempt to violate the stacking limits at the end of every step and after each retreat and advance after combat (see 11.16.5).
If overstacking happens inadvertently then confirm:
o the owner must destroy enough of the overstacked units to comply with the stacking limits and
o must destroy face-up units before face-down units.
Land unit limits
Confirm that :
o only 2 land units can stack in a hex.
o stacking limits are doubled in an off-map hex.
o AsA/MiF/PoliF options 2, 3 & 6: You can stack 3 land units in a hex if the 3rd unit is a division, artillery or supply. You can stack 5 land units in an off-map hex if the 5th unit is a division, artillery or supply.
o AfA/MiF option 5: Up to 2 fortification markers can occupy a hex in addition to any other units.
o Units invading (see 11.14) and paradropping (see 11.15) have a stacking limit in addition to the defending units’ limit. This limit is applied to the combined number of invading and paradropping units.
o There is no limit to how many land units being naval transported (see 11.4.5) can stack in a sea-box.
Aircraft unit limits
Confirm that the stacking limits for aircraft units not flying a mission are:
o Minor port hex - 2
o Major port or city hex - 3
o Mountain, desert mountain or swamp hex - 0
o Any other hex - 1
o Hex with HQ +1
o If several limits apply (e.g. a city in a mountain hex), the highest of them applies.
o Aircraft stacking limits are doubled in an off-map hex. The HQ increase for aircraft units applies after doubling.
o MiF option 7: (ENG divisions) Each ENG (even face-down) increases the aircraft stacking limit of a hex by 1 (e.g. you could stack 2 aircraft in a swamp occupied by 2 ENG units). In off-map hexes, this increase applies after doubling.
o Option 8: (Flying boats) Flying boats can only stack in a coastal hex (even if the coast is only on a lake) and that you can only ever stack 1 flying boat in a hex in addition to any other aircraft there.
o Flying boats can fly missions into, or rail move through, non-coastal hexes.
o Engineers (MiF option 7) do not effect stacking limits for flying boats.
o ATR flying boats (e.g. the BV-222) can only air transport units to or from, or air supply units in, coastal hexes.
Naval unit limits
Confirm that the stacking limits for naval units are:
o Up to 2 naval units can stack together in a friendly controlled minor port.
o Every 5 convoy points is 1 naval unit.
o SiF option 9: Up to 4 naval units can stack together in a minor port. Every 2 convoy points (or any spare point) is a naval unit.
o There is no limit to the number of naval units that can occupy a friendly controlled major port (exception: see 18.2, foreign troop commitments) or a sea-box.
o Both sides’ naval units can occupy the same sea-box, even in the same section.
o Stacking limits for land, aircraft and naval units are independent. So, you can have any number of naval units, up to 4 aircraft units and an HQ stacked with another land unit in a major port city.
2.4 Supply
2.4.1 When to check supply
Confirm that supply is checked :
o before a unit it moves, flies, sails or reorganises.
o immediately before you resolve an overrun (both sides),
o during combat declaration (attacking units) and
o at the moment of combat (both sides).
o Units at sea are always in supply.
2.4.2 Tracing supply
Create supply path combinations to confirm that supply can be traced from:
o any friendly city in the unit’s unconquered home country; or
o for a Commonwealth unit, any friendly city in another unconquered Commonwealth home country; or
o any friendly city in an unconquered home country of a major power the unit co-operates with (see 18.1).
o MiF option 6: An HQ is a primary supply source for the rest of the turn if you expend a face-up supply unit it is stacked with (see 22.4.10).
Confirm that:
o A city controlled by the communist Chinese is not friendly to the nationalist Chinese (and vice versa), even though both are (nominally) on the same side.
o If the unit can’t trace a supply path directly to a primary supply source, it can trace it via one or more secondary supply sources instead.
Confirm that A secondary supply source for a unit is:
o an HQ the unit co-operates with (see 18.1); or
o the capital city of a minor country controlled by the unit’s major power; or
o the capital city of a major power, or a minor country, conquered by the unit’s major power, or by a major power the unit co-operates with.
Create supply path combinations to prove that:
o A secondary supply source of the tracing unit must be able to trace a supply path either to a primary supply source or via another secondary supply source. That other secondary source must also be able to trace a supply path either to a primary source or via another secondary source, and so on. There can be any number of secondary supply sources in this chain but it must end up at a primary supply source of the unit tracing the path.
o A city can only be a supply source for a unit if it has not been controlled by the other side at any time in the turn.
o A supply source can supply any number of units.
o A supply path, basic or railway, can be up to 4 hexes.
o Each Asian or Pacific (AfA/AiF/AsA Option 1: or African, American or Scandinavian) map hex you trace into counts as 2 hexes.
o Each off-map hex counts as 4 hexes, so you can only trace a basic supply path into an adjacent hex during clear weather.
o Each desert, or desert mountain, hex your supply path enters counts as 1 extra hex (i.e. counts as 2 on the European maps, 3 on the Asian and Pacific maps and 5 in off-map hexes).
o This maximum distance varies according to weather
o A hex a railway supply path enters, by moving along a railway or road, does not count against the 4 hex limit.
o hex it enters across a straits hexside also does not count against the limit, so long as the hexes on either side of the straits are railway hexes.
Overseas supply paths
Confirm that:
o Any part of a basic or railway supply path can be traced overseas.
o You may only trace supply overseas once for each unit attempting to trace supply, regardless of how many secondary supply sources are used between the tracing unit and the primary supply source.
o The sea portion of a supply path does not count against the maximum number of hexes permitted in the path.
o The port hex you trace the overseas supply path into does count against your 4 hex limit. However, it always counts as only 1 hex, regardless of what map it is on or what terrain it contains.
o To trace a basic supply path overseas, the unit must be in a coastal hex or trace the path via a port.
o To trace a railway path overseas, the secondary source must be in a coastal hex or trace the path via a port.
o SiF option 11: (limited overseas supply) You can only trace a supply path overseas if each sea area you trace it through contains a friendly convoy, TRS or AMPH.
o From the coastal hex or port, you trace the supply path via any number of consecutive sea areas to a friendly controlled port which is a supply source itself or from which you can continue the supply path overland to a supply source.
o You cannot trace a supply path into a sea area that contains:
o an enemy CV, SCS or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor unless;
o it also contains a surface naval unit, or aircraft unit with an air-to-sea factor, (SiF option 11: convoy, TRS, or AMPH only) controlled by any major power or minor country at war with that enemy unit.
o You can’t trace a supply path between sea areas if one of your SCS couldn’t move between them (see 11.4.4).
o You cannot trace an overseas supply path either out of, or into, an iced-in port (see 8.2.10) if the weather in that hex is snow or blizzard.
Limits on supply paths
Confirm that you can’t trace any supply path:
o into an enemy ZOC (unless the hex contains a friendly land unit); or
o into a hex controlled by another major power unless it agrees; or
o into a hex controlled by a neutral country (exception: Vichy territory ~ see 17.4 and Sweden ~ see 19.7); or
o across an alpine hexside; or
o across a lake hexside (except when frozen); or
o across an all sea hexside that isn’t a straits hexside (except as an overseas supply path); or
o for any Soviet unit, into a hex controlled by any other Allied major power (and vice versa) unless the USSR is at war with Germany.
o Option 12: (limited access across straits) A unit can’t trace supply across a straits hexside, if the presence of enemy units would prevent you tracing an overseas supply path into that sea area.
2.4.3 Out of supply
Land units
Confirm that a land unit that is out of supply:
o can’t attack;
o is marked as “face-down” if you move it (even by naval transport or air transport);
o defends with 1 combat factor if it is a face-down division (see 22.4.1) or non-white print unit, 3 if it is a face-down white print unit (face-up units defend with their normal strength); and
o option 13: can’t provide HQ support (see 11.16.3).
o still has their normal movement allowance and
o still exert a ZOC.
Aircraft units
Confirm that aircraft units that are out of supply can only fly rebase missions.
Naval units
Confirm that a naval unit that is out of supply
o subtracts 1 from its movement allowance (not range) and
o is marked “face-down” (or “CP used” if it is a convoy point) when you finish its move (even at sea).
o Option 13: (emergency HQ supply) can operate as if they were in supply this impulse if they can trace a basic supply path to a face-up HQ they may co-operate with. You can only do this with as many units as the HQ’s reorganisation value.
o An HQ may not provide emergency HQ supply during the impulse(s) it is surprised.
2.5 Control
Entities
Confirm the borders of home countries and territories. Move units across borders to confirm that the hexes are flagged correctly for political control. Repeat this test after every political event which affects the borders of a country.
Changing control
Confirm that political control of a hex changes when:
o an enemy land unit (except for partisans ~ see 13.1, and supply units ~ see 22.4.10) enters it (the major power entering with the most factors if more than one); or
o an island, territory, minor country or major power is conquered (see 13.7.1) or liberated (see 13.7.5); or
o France is declared Vichy (see 17.); or
o a communist Chinese-controlled city entered by a nationalist Chinese land unit or vice versa; or
o during the liberation step when you return control to the original owner (see 13.7.5, reversion).
Units in hexes that change control
Confirm that any naval and aircraft units in a hex which passes to enemy control react as if they had been overrun (see 11.11.6).
2.6 Fractions
Confirm that the game treats fractions in the following manner:
o round to the nearest whole number, rounding halves up.
o Rounding a negative number up moves you closer to zero. For example, if the fraction is -1.5, it rounds to -1.
o Rounds off a number immediately before:
o calculating an odds ratio; or
o looking the number up in a table; or
o comparing it to a dice roll or to a fixed value; or
o spending oil (see 13.5.1) or build points.
2.7 Dice
2.8 Range
Confirm that when counting the distance from one hex to another, you count the final hex but not the starting hex. For example, it is 4 hexes from Berlin to Nuremberg.




coregames -> RE: Test Plan for MWiF (6/3/2005 4:17:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
...but for the moment there is no MWiF to test upon, so this may be a little soon for this, isn't it ? What can we do without the smallest idea of how the software will be ?


This is actually Patrice's quote..




coregames -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - Rules sections 1 & 2 (6/3/2005 4:22:32 AM)

I see... it's just an exhaustive case-by-case test of the MWiF rules against the RaW 7 from ADG. I can do that, as long as I get to play some too. Would the sections of the rules be split up between testers? Let's see what Matrix has to say when they post in this thread... Sounds productive.




Mziln -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - Rules sections 1 & 2 (6/3/2005 5:50:53 AM)

[sm=00000117.gif] Well I've stripped the naval rules from RaW 7. This make things easier to read and understand.

Created spreadsheets color coded by major power:

For production, trade agreements, resourse location, factory destination, and convoys necessary to reach factorys.

Production Pool, Construction Pool, Repair Pool, and Reserve Pool lists.

I even show percentage of global: production, factorys (Red & Blue), and resources (Oil & other). [sm=00000117.gif]

[X(] But since this is based on CWiF it may be useless. [X(]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Test Plan for MWiF (6/3/2005 5:55:20 AM)

Nice work on the test plan. I might add that under the Map heading you could list checking the computer maps' terrain and hexsides against the board game maps.

Similarly, the computer's list of units could be compared to the board game's, checking that the numbers and other characteristics match.

One seems to get the impression that a lot of testing/checking will need to be done.

Shannon




Mziln -> RE: Test Plan for MWiF (6/3/2005 6:10:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

One seems to get the impression that a lot of testing/checking will need to be done.


It all depends on what Matrix plans to do with CWiF (ADG/Chris Marinacci version) and MWiF (Matrix version).




coregames -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - Rules sections 1 & 2 (6/3/2005 6:14:09 AM)

I think CWiF is identical to WiFFE in the areas you listed Mziln.




Mziln -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - Rules sections 1 & 2 (6/3/2005 7:08:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
I think CWiF is identical to WiFFE in the areas you listed Mziln.


I miss the World in Flames production circle.

So I have a turn by turn list of production instead of the one window production pool.

I also show a total of how many convoys it takes to move a resource from a location to a factory.

Listing resources/factorys on a spreadsheet eliminates the clutter of repeated entrys.

As CWiF is now the Resources/Production window individualy lists oil, resource, and factory.

Like this:

1 oil in Rumania going to a Dresden factory creating 1 production
1 resource in Essen going to a Essen factory creating 1 production
1 resource in Essen
1 factory Dresden
1 factory Essen

My spreadsheet shows all resource locations and any factorys they arrive at, or any unused factorys, or any unused resources.

like this:

1 Rumanian oil going to a Blue Dresden factory creating 1 production
1 resource in Essen going to a Red Essen factory creating 1 production

Note: I have simplified both examples. My version uses the EXCEL LOOKUP function so it includes locations of all resources and factorys by controling or neutral power.




Greyshaft -> MWiF Test Cases - Rules sections (6/3/2005 7:30:19 AM)

There's no reason why the playtesters can't have fun with the game. Why else would they do the work? I'm just pointing out that Software Testing is a discipline and that taking 10 hours to design and execute a Test Plan is of more benefit to Matrix than just playing the game for 500 hours. Even if MWiF is based completely on CWiF the question remains as to what has been tested and documented. I have no doubt that lots of people played the beta for thousands of hours, but was this ad-hoc testing or part of a documented test plan? If a test plan was written back for CWiF then it would really help us here.

I'm developingthis test plan on WiF-RaW-7-aug-04.zip taken from the Australian Design Group Website at:
* http://www.a-d-g.com.au/
* downloads
* WiF-RaW-7-aug-04.zip

The rules sections are:
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
1.1 Rules 3
1.2 Scale 3
1.3 Markers 3
2. General concepts 3
2.1 Terrain 3
2.2 Zones of control 4
2.3 Stacking 5
2.4 Supply 5
2.5 Control 7
2.6 Fractions 8
2.7 Dice 8
2.8 Range 8
3. The Turn 8
3.1 Sequence of play 8
4. Reinforcement Stage 9
4.1 Force pool changes 9
4.2 Reinforcements 9
5. Lending Stage 9
5.1 Trade agreements 10
6. Initiative Stage 10
6.1 Determining initiative 10
6.2 Effect of Initiative 11
7. The Action Stage 11
8. Weather 11
8.1 Weather zones 11
8.2 Weather effects 11
9. Declaring war 12
9.1 Neutral major powers 12
9.2 How to declare war 12
9.3 Compulsory declarations 12
9.4 US entry 12
9.5 Neutrality pacts 13
9.6 Calling out the reserves 13
9.7 Controlling new minors 14
9.8 Aligning minors 14
9.9 Multiple states of war 14
9.10 Japanese occupation 14
10. Choosing Actions 14
10.1 Action types 14
10.2 Activity limits 14
11. Implementing actions 15
11.1 Passing 15
11.2 Port attack 15
11.3 Naval air missions 15
11.4 Naval movement 16
11.5 Naval combat 19
11.6 Opponent’s naval combat 22
11.7 Strategic bombardment 22
11.8 Carpet bombing (option 32) 23
11.9 Ground strike 23
11.10 Rail movement 24
11.11 Land movement 24
11.12 Air transport 25
11.13 Debarking land units 26
11.14 Invasions 26
11.15 Paradrops 27
11.16 Land combat 27
11.17 Aircraft rebases 30
11.18 Reorganisation 31
12. Last impulse test 31
13. End of Turn Stage 31
13.1 Partisans (option 46) 31
13.2 Entry markers 32
13.3 US entry 32
13.4 Return to base 35
13.5 Final reorganisation step 35
13.6 Production 36
13.7 Peace 39
13.8 Victory check 41
14. Aircraft 42
14.1 Aircraft movement 42
14.2 Aircraft missions 42
14.3 Air-to-air combat 43
14.4 CV units 45
14.5 Terrain 46
14.6 Pilots (PiF option 28) 46
14.7 Flying bombs (PiF option 59) 47
14.8 Kamikazes (option 60) 47
15. Surprise 47
15.1 Surprise effects 47
16. Offensive chits (option 61) 47
16.1 Air action 47
16.2 Naval action 48
16.3 Land action 48
16.4 Combined action 48
16.5 Reorganise HQs 48
17. Vichy France 48
17.1 Creation 48
17.2 Determine control 48
17.3 Units 48
17.4 Running Vichy France 49
17.5 Combat with Vichy 49
17.6 Running Free France 49
18. Co-operation 50
18.1 Who can co-operate 50
18.2 Not co-operating 50
18.3 Co-operating 50
19. Minor countries 50
19.1 Neutral minor countries 50
19.2 Entering the war 50
19.3 Who can enter the minor 51
19.4 Minor country units 51
19.5 The Nazi-Soviet pact 51
19.6 Soviet border rectification 52
19.7 Axis minor countries 52
19.8 Allied minor countries 53
19.9 Netherlands East Indies 53
19.10 Austria & East Prussia 53
19.11 French African minors 53
19.12 The Ukraine (option 62) 53
19.13 MIL units 54
20. Chinese communists 54
21. Stilwell 54
22. Optional rules 54
22.1 Intelligence (option 63) 54
22.2 Factory destruction & construction
(option 30) 55
22.3 Japanese command conflict
(option 64) 55
22.4 Optional units 55
23. Index and Glossary 61
2die 10 table 64

Mziln:
if you're going to have a stab at the Naval Rules then I guess that covers 11.4 - 11.6

Coregames:
Sorry about the misquote. I must have been a bit sloppy with my cut and pasting.

Shannon:
Map characteristics are a valid area of Testing. I would see them as a subset of section 2.1 Terrain. The counter manifest would be a part of scenario testing




Mziln -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - Rules sections (6/3/2005 7:49:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Mziln:
if you're going to have a stab at the Naval Rules then I guess that covers 11.4 - 11.6


uh...

Rules 1.2 Scale through 10.1 Action types include naval rules.

Don't forget rule 11.14 Invasions.





StrictlyRockers -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - Rules sections (6/3/2005 2:34:14 PM)

I'd just like to state that I am an experienced beta tester and playtester for wargames and computer wargames. I have alson been pursuing this hobby avidly since my dad taught me to play Avalon Hill's Blitzkreig at the age of 6. I am currently employed by Firaxis as a beta tester for Civ 4. So, I'd like to offer my serivces if they can be used. WiF is the best game ever. It is way better than Civilization 'cuz it is a true wargame that does it right. Civ is more of a god-game posing as a wargame. I wouldn't know who to send this to directly, and I know that the game is far, far away from reaching this stage, but when the time comes, remember I posted here to reserve as spot if I am needed. [8D]




Greyshaft -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - Rules sections (6/3/2005 3:14:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrictlyRockers
I am currently employed by Firaxis as a beta tester for Civ 4.

Employed??? You mean they're paying you [&o][&o][&o] Seriously though I'd say the more the merrier for testing purposes. It's a chance to show Matrix that we are willing to put in some disciplined work where it will be needed. If we get up a disciplined test plan with professional styled test cases then they'd be mad to refuse it.

Mziln:
Your post is an great example of why we need to specialise. No one person can know it all therefore we need resident gurus in each area of testing. Your mission (if you choose to accept it) is to go through RAW and list every rule which involves naval units.

Anyone want to take on the air units? Ground units? Political rules? Production?

Just for the record I hearby state that any plans I post in this Forum related to testing MWiF is placed in the public domain and can be freely copied and reused in any way by anyone without attribution. In other words, Matrix owes me nothing if they use it.




coregames -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - Rules sections (6/3/2005 8:33:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: StrictlyRockers
I wouldn't know who to send this to directly...


There's a thread in this forum for "getting in line" as it were:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=761977

I agree about Sid Meyer's Civ games. They are very good, but not true rt wargames (like HoI) -- more akin to Populous in many ways. This aspect is clear when you see how different the Eagle Games adaptation of Civ is from the computer game. Still, it must be fun to test them. So let us know StrictlyRockers; is Civ4 up to Civ2 standards?




coregames -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - Rules sections (6/3/2005 8:37:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Anyone want to take on the air units? Ground units? Political rules? Production?



I admit the air rules fascinate me, as do the political rules. Any area I can help in, however, I would step up.




Greyshaft -> MWiF Test Cases - air rules (6/4/2005 12:35:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
I admit the air rules fascinate me, as do the political rules. Any area I can help in, however, I would step up.


So take the air rules then and get cracking. I'll post some better templates next week. For now, just list all of the air rules and consider how you would test if that rule was correctly implemented.

Excel is probably a good way to store the info




Mziln -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - air rules (6/4/2005 2:55:03 AM)

quote:

Here is a first pass at identifying test cases for sections 1 and 2 of the rules. I have attached the zipped Word doc. It is named as a .txt file so you need to:
* download the file (creates a Test.doc or Test.txt file)
* rename it to a .zip file (Renaming file creates Test.zip.doc or test.zip.txt)
* unzip the file
* read the resulting Word document


[X(] Uh some help is required here. [X(]




Greyshaft -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - air rules (6/4/2005 6:28:32 AM)

Rename the file to "TEST.ZIP" while downloading or afterwards using Windows Explorer




Hortlund -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - air rules (6/4/2005 11:47:44 AM)

Guys, are you sure you are not wasting your time here?




Greyshaft -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - air rules (6/4/2005 3:45:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Guys, are you sure you are not wasting your time here?


Nope. Not sure at all.
I'm happy to listen to better suggestions about how to spend my time [:)]




Mziln -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - air rules (6/7/2005 7:21:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Guys, are you sure you are not wasting your time here?


[:D] LOL [:D] It keeps me busy.

RaW 7 WiF Politics

3.1 Sequence of play. The sequence of play in a turn is:

A. REINFORCEMENT STAGE

B. ~ 5. Lending Resources Stage
~ 5.1 Trade agreements

C. INITIATIVE STAGE

D. ACTION STAGE. Repeat D1 through D3 until the action stage ends.
D1 Determine weather
D2 First side’s impulse. Every major power on the first side performs these steps:

D2.1 ~ 9. Declaring war
~ 9.1 Neutral major powers
~ 9.2 How to declare war
~ 9.3 Compulsory declarations
~ 9.4 US entry
~ 9.5 Neutrality pacts
~ 9.6 Calling out the reserves
~ 9.7 Controlling new minors
~ 9.8 Aligning minors
~ 9.9 Multiple states of war
~ 9.10 Japanese occupation

D2.2 Choose action
D2.3 Perform actions
D2.4 End of action
D3 Second side’s impulse

E. 13. End of Turn Stage. Both sides perform these steps in this order:
~ 13.1 Partisans (Option 46)
~ 13.2 Entry markers
~ 13.3 US entry
~ 13.3.1 Entry markers
~ 13.3.2 US entry options
~ 13.3.3 US entry actions
~ 19.6 Soviet border rectification
~ 19.6.1 USSR and Finland borderlands
~ 19.6.2 USSR and Rumanian Bessarabia

E3 Return to base
E4 Final reorganization
E5 Production

E6 ~ 22.1 Intelligence (option 63)

E7 ~ 13.7 Peace
~ 19.12 The Ukraine (option 62)
E7.1 ~ 13.7.1 Conquest
E7.2 ~ 13.7.2 Allied minor support
E7.3 ~ 13.7.3 Mutual peace
E7.4
~ 13.7.4 Vichy declaration
~ 17. Vichy France
~ 17.1 Creation
~ 17.2 Determine control
~ 17.3 Units
~ 17.4 Running Vichy France
~ 17.5 Combat with Vichy
~ 17.6 Running Free France
E7.5 ~ 13.7.5 Liberation
E7.6 ~ 13.7.6 Surrender

E8 ~ 13.8 Victory check (& option 30: factory destruction)





coregames -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - air rules (6/7/2005 11:58:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Guys, are you sure you are not wasting your time here?


You mean in case the project winds up as vaporware? Or do you mean that Matrix may not require non-staff testers to go quite this far...

I'm working on Air rules test protocols (Mziln seems to have staked out political); my only concern is that the form of the game may change (ugh I hope not), and then any of these procedures will have to be redone.




Greyshaft -> draft "Use Case" Test Plan for MWiF (6/8/2005 12:35:53 AM)

Mziln, Coregames (and anyone else whos serious about developing a professional Test Plan for MWiF)

Pls send me a PM with your email address and I will send you an Excel spreadsheet which starts to set out the "Use Case" test plan for checking off the usage of WiF:FE rules in MWiF.

A "Use Case" plan concentrates on the interaction of the User with the system. It lists the expected interactions (ie the WiF:FE ruleset) and lists the tests for ensuring that those rules are implemented in MWiF. It does not look for bugs as such although it may find some along the way. When you see the spreadsheet you will understand.




Hortlund -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - air rules (6/8/2005 12:52:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

You mean in case the project winds up as vaporware? Or do you mean that Matrix may not require non-staff testers to go quite this far...


I mean in case
1) it goes vaporware
2) matrix decides to change gameplay/sequence of play due to whatever reason

Its not as if its set in stone that the wif rules will be used for the computer conversion. Quite on the contrary, from looking at some of their answers, it seems to be very much an open question.

And
3) its probably pretty pointless to start working out a test case-rule system when you dont know even what the GDDs are. Not to mention that any beta is at least 1-1,5 yrs away (best case scenario).







Greyshaft -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - air rules (6/8/2005 1:37:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
... its probably pretty pointless to start working out a test case-rule system when you dont know even what the GDDs are. Not to mention that any beta is at least 1-1,5 yrs away (best case scenario).


So feel free not to participate.

From my point of view the benefits of this exercise are:

1. The participants get a chance to reread the WiF:FE ruleset in excruciating detail and thereby become more deadly opponents in their FTF games.

2. There is now a constructive and educational outlet for the frustrated fans who haunt this Forum (myself included) and the participants learn a little bit about professional software testing.

3. A draft Test plan is created which covers WiF:FE. This will doubtless be tweaked/ modified/ revised later on - like every other Test Plan I have ever worked on.

4. At some point in the future the Matrix Team will want a Test Plan and – lo and behold – here is a bunch of wannabe beta-testers who have got off their bulging backsides and created one. That’s gotta help in jumping the queue to be a beta-tester. [:D]




Mziln -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - air rules (6/8/2005 3:16:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund


I mean in case
1) it goes vaporware
2) matrix decides to change gameplay/sequence of play due to whatever reason

Its not as if its set in stone that the wif rules will be used for the computer conversion. Quite on the contrary, from looking at some of their answers, it seems to be very much an open question.

And
3) its probably pretty pointless to start working out a test case-rule system when you dont know even what the GDDs are. Not to mention that any beta is at least 1-1,5 yrs away (best case scenario).


(1) If it goes vaporware. Well, in my personal opinion ANY PROGRAM NOT RELEASED is vaporware. [sm=00000117.gif]

(2) If matrix decides to change gameplay/sequence of play. Cut and Paste Cut and Paste. [sm=terms.gif][sm=00000055.gif]

(3) Its probably pretty pointless to start working out a test case-rule system. Matrix has asked for our ideas and opinions here they are [sm=00000622.gif] If nothing else it gives us a ready made list of things to complain about [sm=terms.gif]

[sm=00000436.gif] YUP, I'm a wannabe beta tester in training [sm=party-smiley-012.gif]




coregames -> possible sequence consolidation (6/8/2005 9:39:18 AM)

quote:

Original: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

I mean in case
1) it goes vaporware
2) matrix decides to change gameplay/sequence of play due to whatever reason



Panzerjaeger has a point Greyshaft. If they implement a general consolidation of the turn sequence for PBEM, as you suggested a while back, the test protocols will all need to be redone to be valid. I do hope that truly faithful play (at least as much so as CM's beta at any rate) will be an option, in which case none of the effort you suggest will be wasted.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.203125