Gentle Reader: This is the second part of a two-part set of posts. For this one to be useful, please take a look at Part I. Also, I’m not an expert on military operations or organizations; so if there’s any error in a basic infantry platoon, feel free to correct me. I am aware, however, of the 7-1 ratio of Service to Combat units in the modern military, and that this is only a simple component of a far more sophisticated structure—that’s why I selected it!
In the first installment of the Wrong Way Warrior, we saw how an OOP developer put together a simple proof-of-concept using what he thought was a prudent approach to a battle simulation. He’d provide the Warrior with certain characteristics and then subclass those characteristics to concrete warriors that would share the capabilities of the parent class. In addition, the concrete warriors would be given a movie clip representation of the warrior.
After the first design was sent to the customer, the response was less than favorable. It was described as “a children’s game” at best. The military advisor described it as a caveman battle plan where all of the combatants are similarly armed with a club to attack adversaries. The problem was that it was bound to a fairly static design, and it would be impossible to be used for a simulation that had more complex behaviors. However, the other submissions were not much better, and so the customer provided a simple organization within the military to simulate—the basic infantry platoon. After all, they’re paying your company $1.5 million to develop the simulation. (This was news to the developer!) Figure 1 shows the organization in terms of a new set of movie clips:
Figure 1: Movie clip representation of platoon
Continue reading ‘Wrong Way Warrior: Getting Flexibility with Design Patterns—Part II’
Bill Sanders
Recent Comments