PaperMan & Nymeria
PaperMan
Hey Nymeria, I've been sketching out a new virtual battlefield layout for a strategy game and could use your tactical eye—got to get the line-of-sight and chokepoints just right. What do you think about using varied elevation to create natural defensive positions?
Nymeria
Varied elevation is a solid idea, but you need to map it out in metric units first. Make sure the slope angles don’t exceed the projectile drop for the longest-range weapons, and check that every high point actually blocks the line‑of‑sight for the opposing team. Add a few natural obstacles—like rock outcrops or tree clusters—on the slopes to give defenders extra cover. If you over‑flatten those heights, you’ll lose the tactical advantage you’re after. Also, keep an eye on the wind drift; high places can let bullets slip over the intended choke point if you’re not careful.
PaperMan
Got it—metric grid, slope limits, line‑of‑sight checks, natural obstacles, wind drift noted. I’ll draft a top‑down schematic with all those constraints and run a quick ray‑trace simulation to confirm the choke points hold up. I’ll ping you once I’ve got a solid layout.
Nymeria
Sounds solid. Just double‑check that the ray‑trace takes into account the dynamic terrain changes—if you have a movable barrier or a timed elevation change, the simulation might give you a false positive. Let me know when it’s ready.
PaperMan
Will tweak the ray‑trace to include the dynamic barrier and timed elevation shift. I’ll run it again and loop you in once the checks pass.We should be fine.Understood—I'll update the simulation to model those moving parts and re‑run the checks. I'll let you know as soon as the results are finalized.
Nymeria
Nice, just remember to log each change in the specs—no surprises when the enemy uses that gap. Keep me posted.
PaperMan
All changes will be logged in the specs document—no surprises. I’ll keep you posted once the updated simulation finishes.