Game Development Status 11/6/11

I am continuing to work on the prototype for the AI and UI for PC PIC-Guam. This weekend I wrote the evaluation function for the Fire Combat AI, hooked the AI up to the game system, and got the Japanese to conduct a Defensive Fire. I'm filling in around the edges now. The UI is not displaying color overlays to indicate the target hexes of the AI's fire combats. I also have some additional testing to do to make sure the game phases out of AI fire phases OK. After that I need to make sure the AI moves execute, and then I will change the game to have the AI run the US side.

My backlog (from Evernote) looks like

Finish the prototype

Write the Eval method

11/6/11 - 2 hours

Hand-calc the stat avg values

this was not necessary, as it is possible to calculate the values.

Write the allocation selection code

11/6/11 - 1 hour

Write code to apply the selected fire allocation and resolve the attacks

11/6/11 - 1 hour

Test to confirm that attacks occur and make sense: phase, AI runs, game resolves fires from selected allocation, player reviews results, phase again and results no longer display

Write code to move the AI's units.

Change the code to play the US side

Test the movement part of the code

Remove assault and reorg phases

Test to confirm that AI and player phase the game and that each phase has something real happening

Write code to detect victory conditions and display a victory message (turns/duration date of victory, victory conditions)

Add the full orbat for the first scenario

Test the first scenario

do I need to remove other (unused) phases ?

Write an installer including a EULA with full disclaimers

test on home laptop and dawn's laptop: install, uninstall, BVT (run 1 turn), full game to include victory conditions

Agile techniques help you herd cats. Waterfall methodologies help cats herd you.

A friend of mine is working on a project that is sticking with a waterfall methodology in the face of constantly changing requirements. They seem to be stuck in analysis paralysis, though they are making forward progress and taking positive steps to achieve closure on requirements sign off. I think they should be using agile techniques, or at least prototyping. From what I hear, it appears the problem is that higher up is sticking with waterfall in order to reduce their risk, forgetting that their duty is to reduce my friend's company's risk by using the best methods. The development team should quickly implement a vertical slice of functionality under the current style guidelines and provide it to the stakeholders. Once they see what they've got, they'll realize what they really want.

They should be playing to win; instead, it seems they're playing not to lose.