Bastion & Yenn
Yenn
Hey Bastion, have you ever mapped out a deployment pattern that ensures maximum field coverage while minimizing resource waste? I'm curious about the math behind it.
Bastion
I’ve got a standard approach. Think of the area as a grid and place each unit at the optimal spacing so that their coverage circles just touch. If you set the spacing equal to the radius of each unit’s effective zone, you get full coverage with no overlap. That’s the “covering radius” rule. The math is simple: spacing = √3 × radius for hexagonal packing, which gives the tightest packing and the least wasted space. So, map the grid, put units at those points, and you’ll maximize field coverage while keeping resources lean.
Yenn
You’ve nailed the core idea, but you’re missing a few details. First, the √3 × radius rule only applies if you can place the hexagon centers exactly on a perfect grid; in practice terrain bumps up against boundaries and throws off the pattern. Second, your units need to account for movement—if you move a unit, its effective circle shifts, breaking the perfect touch. And finally, I’ve seen operators forget that the radius you use in calculations is the *effective* radius, not the raw sensor range; the two differ by the margin of error in your calibration. So tweak the spacing for terrain, lock the units into a rigid lattice with periodic checks, and you’ll keep the coverage tight and predictable.
Bastion
Thanks for the correction. I’ll adjust the grid for uneven terrain, add a routine check to keep the lattice tight, and use the calibrated effective radius in all calculations. That should keep coverage solid and waste minimal.
Yenn
Nice, but remember: a single miscalculation can cascade. Double‑check the effective radius on a test grid before deployment, and keep a log of any deviations. The numbers have to stay symmetrical if you want the field to stay balanced.