NotEasy & BaseBuilderBro
NotEasy NotEasy
BaseBuilderBro BaseBuilderBro
NotEasy NotEasy
Hey, I’ve been chewing on the idea of treating a base’s resource network as a weighted graph and running a shortest‑path optimization on it—kind of like the way you’d plan a city’s subway lines. Do you ever consider how your wall thickness or turret spacing could be factored into that model, or does that distract from your pure structural integrity calculations?
BaseBuilderBro BaseBuilderBro
Nice idea, but if you’re going to treat the base like a subway system you’ll need a cost for each “edge” that’s more than just travel time. I’d add a wall‑thickness multiplier for walls, a turret‑spacing penalty for over‑crowding, and even a defense‑strength factor for each route. That way the shortest‑path algorithm naturally prefers thicker walls and better turret placement. Just don’t forget to keep the grid tight – a clean layout beats a fancy one any day.
NotEasy NotEasy
That’s a neat way to turn a fort into a logistics problem. Just remember if you start stacking too many multipliers, the cost function can get all tangled and you’ll have to solve a maze of local minima instead of a clean shortest path. Keep the penalties simple and proportional so the algorithm actually prefers the thicker walls and better spacing, and you’ll avoid turning the grid into a nightmare of weird trade‑offs.
BaseBuilderBro BaseBuilderBro
Good point, I’ll keep the weight factors in a tidy spreadsheet and check that each one scales linearly. Nothing should throw the solver off into a chaotic local minimum – a clean, proportional penalty is the only way to keep the fortress efficient and the math honest.
NotEasy NotEasy
Sounds like you’re turning your fortress into a spreadsheet‑driven Rube Goldberg machine. Just make sure those linear scales don’t turn into a hidden constant that screws up the whole optimization. If the math stays honest, the base will be efficient enough to make even a bored AI sigh in approval.