sequence consolidation is irrelevent (Full Version)

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



Message

Greyshaft -> sequence consolidation is irrelevent (6/8/2005 2:31:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
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.


Lets get a bit deeper into test definitions.

The "Use Case" test is a simple check of functionality to ensure that a task CAN be done. It is not really concerned with HOW it is done. So a Use case test would ensure that you can launch a Port Strike but it would not be concerned where in the turn sequence it occured. Once the Use Case testing was completed and all of the application functions were confirmed as existant (no matter where in the Turn Sequence they occured ) then you move onto User Acceptance Testing (UAT) and ensure that the Port Strike occured in accordance with expectations.

If we take the WiF:FE + PiF + SiF ruleset as a somewhat longwinded Project Brief then we need a way to ensure that the Project Specification (yet to be written) covers all of the function points listed in that Project Brief. That is what a "Use Case" test does and that the purpose of my current documentation.



coregames -> RE: sequence consolidation is irrelevent (6/8/2005 9:11:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
The "Use Case" test is a simple check of functionality to ensure that a task CAN be done. It is not really concerned with HOW it is done. So a Use case test would ensure that you can launch a Port Strike but it would not be concerned where in the turn sequence it occured.


So, such aspects as flying extended range, carrier planes flying from hexdots, etc..., are not part of the "Use Case"? I was going to include all aspects and options from WiFFE in my procedures for testing air rules, including bounce combat and interception en route. If I stay modular with the procedures, I guess they can be reshuffled based on any adjustments to the sequence.



Greyshaft -> RE: sequence consolidation is irrelevent (6/9/2005 12:30:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
So, such aspects as flying extended range, carrier planes flying from hexdots, etc..., are not part of the "Use Case"?

All expected functionality of WiF:FW + SiF + PiF is part of this Use Case test. If we get confirmation that LiF will be added then we can construct Test Modules for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
I was going to include all aspects and options from WiFFE in my procedures for testing air rules, including bounce combat and interception en route. If I stay modular with the procedures, I guess they can be reshuffled based on any adjustments to the sequence.

Do that! Include everything from the WiF:FE + PiF + SiF. When we have the completed document we then use it as a checklist for the System Specification for MWiF. The finalised document will tell us the difference between the Harry's WiF:FE rule set and MWiF 1.00 and then we can play 'Forum in Flames'



coregames -> RE: sequence consolidation is irrelevent (6/9/2005 7:31:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

then we can play 'Forum in Flames'



yikes... online that sounds like an invitation for trouble! [X(]



Hortlund -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - air rules (6/9/2005 1:51:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft


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 [:)]



http://www.fincher.org/Misc/Pennies/


There you go bud [;)]



Greyshaft -> Better? (6/10/2005 12:33:03 AM)

uh... thanks... but I did say "better" suggestions. [:D]



Greyshaft -> Progress... (6/16/2005 1:17:37 AM)

Coregames, Mziln,
I’ve finished the spreadsheet setup from 4.0-Reinforcements to 11.1-Passing (inclusive). Could you confirm the rules sections for the setups you are doing so we don’t overlap.

Thanks



coregames -> RE: Progress... (6/16/2005 9:22:25 AM)

I am working on all of RaW 7 section 14, including pilots as they relate to combat but not as they relate to production. I'm not sure if this should include how an offensive chit affects an air action.



Mziln -> RE: Progress... (6/16/2005 5:43:34 PM)

[sm=terms.gif] From RaW 7 [sm=terms.gif]

Editing (compairing RaW 7 to CWiF (there are diferences), reorganizing, removing duplication, and makeing it easier to understand)...

[:)] My resume shows I have been a Documental analyst, proof reader, and have taken courses in technical report writing. So don't worry about me messing up the RaW. Although my spelling and grammar arn't the best I let spellchecker do that for me. [:)]

Example: Why talk about US entry options before you explain US entry actions? Since options don't take place unless actions are taken. Oh yeah, you draw an action chit/marker (for simplicity and clarity, the rules should use one term or the other ) every turn. You have the chance for several actions before the draw of the chit/marker for the turn.

B. 5. Lending Resources Stage
5.1 Trade agreements

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

E. 13. End of Turn Stage
13.1 Partisans (Option 46)
13.2 Neutrality pact entry markers
13.3 US entry
13.3.1 US Entry markers
13.3.2 US entry options
13.3.3 US entry actions

E6 22.1 Intelligence (Option 63)
E7 13.7 Peace
9.5 Neutrality pacts
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

19. Minor countries
19.1 Neutral minor countries
19.2 Entering the war
19.3 Who can enter the minor
19.4 Minor country units
19.5 The Nazi-Soviet pact
19.6 Soviet border rectification
19.6.1 USSR and Finland borderlands
19.6.2 USSR and Rumanian Bessarabia

Did you get the extract of Naval rules (from RaW 7) and the Production spread sheet (compiled from CWiF) that I sent you [&:]



Greyshaft -> RE: Progress... (6/17/2005 12:47:14 AM)

Great progress all around although Mziln and I did some duplication of work. I'd say we're about halfway there. I see the list of remaining topics as follows:

11.1 FAIL Rail movement
11.11 FAIL Land movement
11.12 FAIL Air transport
11.13 FAIL Debarking land units
11.14 FAIL Invasions
11.15 FAIL Paradrops
11.16 FAIL Land combat
11.17 FAIL Aircraft rebases
11.18 FAIL Reorganisation
11.2 FAIL Port attack
11.3 FAIL Naval air missions
11.6 FAIL Opponent’s naval combat
11.7 FAIL Strategic bombardment
11.8 FAIL Carpet bombing (option 32)
11.9 FAIL Ground strike
12 FAIL Last impulse test
13 FAIL End of Turn Stage
13.1 FAIL Partisans (option 46)
13.2 FAIL Entry markers
13.3 FAIL US entry
13.4 FAIL Return to base
13.5 FAIL Final reorganisation step
13.6 FAIL Production
13.8 FAIL Victory check
15 FAIL Surprise
15.1 FAIL Surprise effects
16 FAIL Offensive chits (option 61)
16.1 FAIL Air action
16.2 FAIL Naval action
16.3 FAIL Land action
16.4 FAIL Combined action
16.5 FAIL Reorganise HQs
18 FAIL Co-operation
18.1 FAIL Who can co-operate
18.2 FAIL Not co-operating
18.3 FAIL Co-operating
19.1 FAIL Austria & East Prussia
19.11 FAIL French African minors
19.13 FAIL MIL units
19.7 FAIL Axis minor countries
19.8 FAIL Allied minor countries
19.9 FAIL Netherlands East Indies
20 FAIL Chinese communists
21 FAIL Stilwell
22 FAIL Optional rules
22.1 FAIL Intelligence (option 63)
22.2 FAIL Factory destruction & construction
22.3 FAIL Japanese command conflict
22.4 FAIL Optional units

I'll work on section 11 for the moment.


Mziln:
I didn't get those things from you. Where did you send them?



meyerg -> RE: Progress... (6/17/2005 7:51:52 AM)

I am impressed with the effort. I do not think it will translate to FTF play ability, but it sure will translate to Alpha Test points. If ADG releases more expansions like the new Sith in Flames expansion, for example, you may have to work out the movement of tie fighters and deathstars and incorporate them later.
Put me down for the consolidated sequence of play, or have i posted my opinion on that in a thread or ten already???
Anyway, maybe you guys should try GGWAW and HOI2 to keep you busy.
Greg



Greyshaft -> RE: Progress... (6/17/2005 9:28:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meyerg
I am impressed with the effort.


Thanks. Harry has already offered to publish our work as a new expansion module - "Beta Test in Flames"



Mziln -> RE: Progress... (6/17/2005 10:53:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meyerg
Anyway, maybe you guys should try GGWAW and HOI2 to keep you busy.
Greg


I tried HoI. Took it back because the patch wouldn't load. I don't like the company that produces it.



Hortlund -> RE: Progress... (6/18/2005 12:10:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

quote:

ORIGINAL: meyerg
Anyway, maybe you guys should try GGWAW and HOI2 to keep you busy.
Greg


I tried HoI. Took it back because the patch wouldn't load. I don't like the company that produces it.



Try HoI2. Why dont you like the company btw? Ive been betaing all their games since 2002 and Ive never worked with a better group of people.



Mziln -> RE: Progress... (6/18/2005 2:26:54 PM)

I detest form letters that do not address the problem when contacting support.

Asking me to check my sound and vidio drivers when a patch won't load. Then asking me to subscribe to their newsletter. This kind of puts me off of a company.



Greyshaft -> RE: Progress... (6/18/2005 2:46:07 PM)

I betatested for EU 1 then drifted off in other directions. I found Paradox a welcoming crowd back then but maybe they've changed over time.



Greyshaft -> A journey of 1,000 miles... (7/8/2005 4:03:45 PM)

I'm picking up Steve's invitation to take the lead in developing a Test Plan. Step 1 is to get a better handle on the final rule set and given the new set of Threads in this Forum I think I'll wait a few weeks before making a draft of those.



Mziln -> RE: A journey of 1,000 miles... (7/9/2005 12:17:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Step 1 is to get a better handle on the final rule set and given the new set of Threads in this Forum I think I'll wait a few weeks before making a draft of those.


I'm about halfway done with an reorganization/clarafacation of RaW 7.

Here is a incomplete portion of the Declare War step just as an example (This is a rough so the rules are in correct order even if the numbers arn't):

9. Declaring war step
Neutral major powers
Interacting with countries you are not at war with
Multiple states of war
9.2 How to declare war
9.3 Compulsory declarations
9.7 Control of minor countries
9.8 Aligning minor countries
Argentina
Austria & East Prussia
Brazil
Central America
Mexico
Mongolia
Netherlands East Indies
Persia and Iraq
Siam
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
Allies align Yugoslavia
Axis align Yugoslavia
19.6 Soviet border rectification
19.6.1 USSR and the Finnish borderlands
The USSR claims the Finnish borderlands
Finland allows the claim
Finland denies the claim
19.6.2 USSR and Rumanian Bessarabia
The USSR claims Bessarabia
19.6.2 Rumania allows the claim
Hungary and Bulgaria make demands on Rumania
Germany allows Hungarian and Bulgarian claims
Germany denies Hungarian and Bulgarian claims
19.6.2 Rumania denies the claim
9.4 USA entry is complete and includes: entry & tension pools, format definitions of entrys and options, and lists of actions & options.

You will notice the first thing I did was put the the rule name with all the rule numbers. I also put the option number with the rule and the source of the option.

Example rule 22..4.1:

22.4.1 Divisions Option 2 (AsA/MiF/PoliF)
Engineer divisions Option 7 (MiF) (this is a sub-section of rule 22.4.1)





Greyshaft -> RE: A journey of 1,000 miles... (7/9/2005 12:27:23 AM)

Mziln/Coregames,
You guys are definitely going to get your share of the work but it makes sense to pause for a week or two while we get a clearer understanding of the final rule set. No point writing test cases for off-map boxes if there aren't going to be any off-map boxes. When Steve starts "closing doors" (as he put it) on what will be in the final rules then we take over and do the conversion into Use Cases.

Thanks for your work so far.



Mziln -> RE: A journey of 1,000 miles... (7/9/2005 12:40:25 AM)

[sm=terms.gif] I'm going to offer my version to Matrix (soon as its finished).[sm=terms.gif]

I'm leaving notes for missing information and where screenshots should be.

Yet another example:

Rumania denies the claim

This immediately causes US entry action “31. USSR declares war on ~ Rumania (Germany/Italy -12)”.

Germany can enforce a peace between Rumania and the USSR during any peace step if:
................no hex of Rumania, outside of Bessarabia, is Soviet controlled; and
................Germany and the USSR are not at war.

If Rumania and the USSR come to peace Rumania again becomes a neutral minor country. The USSR keeps control of Bessarabia provided there is a Soviet land unit anywhere in Bessarabia. Germany can declare Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania aligned during any later Axis declaration of war steps by choosing:
................USA entry action “19. Axis aligns a minor ~ Bulgaria (Germany/Italy 3)”; and
................USA entry action “19. Axis aligns a minor ~ Hungary (Germany/Italy 3)”; and
................USA entry action “19. Axis aligns a minor ~ Rumania (Germany/Italy 3)” .

If the USSR conquers Rumania
................During any later Axis declaration of war step Germany can choose USA entry
................action “19. Axis aligns a minor ~ Hungary (Germany/Italy 3)”; and
................Bulgaria can never align with Germany; and
................During any later Allied declaration of war step The USSR can choose USA
................entry action “30. Allies align a Minor ~ Bulgaria (Germany/Italy -5)” .

While Rumania and the USSR are at war:
................During any later Axis declaration of war step Germany can choose USA entry
................action “19. Axis aligns a minor ~ Hungary (Germany/Italy 3)” ; and
................Bulgaria can not align with either Germany or the USSR.

See: 5.1.2 The Nazi-Soviet trade pact ~ Reducing the Soviet commitment.





Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: A journey of 1,000 miles... (7/9/2005 3:24:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Step 1 is to get a better handle on the final rule set and given the new set of Threads in this Forum I think I'll wait a few weeks before making a draft of those.


I'm about halfway done with an reorganization/clarafacation of RaW 7.

Here is a incomplete portion of the Declare War step just as an example (This is a rough so the rules are in correct order even if the numbers arn't):

9. Declaring war step
Neutral major powers
Interacting with countries you are not at war with
Multiple states of war
9.2 How to declare war
9.3 Compulsory declarations
9.7 Control of minor countries
9.8 Aligning minor countries
Argentina
Austria & East Prussia
Brazil
Central America
Mexico
Mongolia
Netherlands East Indies
Persia and Iraq
Siam
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
Allies align Yugoslavia
Axis align Yugoslavia
19.6 Soviet border rectification
19.6.1 USSR and the Finnish borderlands
The USSR claims the Finnish borderlands
Finland allows the claim
Finland denies the claim
19.6.2 USSR and Rumanian Bessarabia
The USSR claims Bessarabia
19.6.2 Rumania allows the claim
Hungary and Bulgaria make demands on Rumania
Germany allows Hungarian and Bulgarian claims
Germany denies Hungarian and Bulgarian claims
19.6.2 Rumania denies the claim
9.4 USA entry is complete and includes: entry & tension pools, format definitions of entrys and options, and lists of actions & options.

You will notice the first thing I did was put the the rule name with all the rule numbers. I also put the option number with the rule and the source of the option.

Example rule 22..4.1:

22.4.1 Divisions Option 2 (AsA/MiF/PoliF)
Engineer divisions Option 7 (MiF) (this is a sub-section of rule 22.4.1)


I love it. I will lay this out along side the source code and compare it visually against what is in CWIF. Of course the fact I see no errors doesn't mean there aren't any, but it should help me catch any glaring ones.



Greyshaft -> RE: A journey of 1,000 miles... (7/11/2005 1:00:18 PM)

I think there will be two sets of rules to consider.

Ruleset 1 - USE Cases: This defines what is possible in the game. Mziln's analysis of political interactions is a great example of this. This gets written in cement fairly early.

Ruleset 2 - TEST Cases: This tells you how to mouseclick and what is under which menu item. This model probably gets changed with each revision until the game goes gold.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Test Cases - Rules sections 1 & 2 (7/12/2005 6:28:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.


Could you please send me a copy of your spreadsheet? I would like to take it into consideration when I get to the game interface. [Steve@PatternDiscovery.us]

Thanks,



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.513672