Posted by: plasticpanzers
« on: May 25, 2018, 03:35:25 AM »Been pondering the physical size of PDCs vs their ground defense. The closer all parts of a PDC (or ground to space defense system) the
easier it is to defend it from ground attacks with ground units. The larger it is the higher the garrison you need to protect it (say it stretches across a
small mountain range). Folks are talking about just setting one up like a trailer park but that leaves it small and vulnerable to a simple kinetic strike
like a dumb missile or rock. But a PDC spread over a vast area can have multiple weapons clusters but it would require a ton more troops to defend
from ground attacks being spread to far apart. Any trailer or towed (or air carried) PDC pieces are very vulnerable and impossible to armor in any
effective way but if you have a handy mountain range say of granite.... From this expansion to spread the targets apart a really impressive PDC
might require several divisions to defend it and having less would force a malus on the defender by a ground attack.
easier it is to defend it from ground attacks with ground units. The larger it is the higher the garrison you need to protect it (say it stretches across a
small mountain range). Folks are talking about just setting one up like a trailer park but that leaves it small and vulnerable to a simple kinetic strike
like a dumb missile or rock. But a PDC spread over a vast area can have multiple weapons clusters but it would require a ton more troops to defend
from ground attacks being spread to far apart. Any trailer or towed (or air carried) PDC pieces are very vulnerable and impossible to armor in any
effective way but if you have a handy mountain range say of granite.... From this expansion to spread the targets apart a really impressive PDC
might require several divisions to defend it and having less would force a malus on the defender by a ground attack.