Art of Domination Thread 04

The reason I'm so insistent on APCs has a lot to do with their usefulness. They're useful, even in a modern (real-world today) military. We probably should be developing specialized variants (such as an IFV or an IMV variant) to further increase their usefulness. There are even APCs that can be turned into mobile mortar/artillery/anti-vehicle variants. However one of the uses of an APC is an armored ambulance. APCs are really, really versatile and are more than just troop transport. Yes. They're, primarily, support vehicles. However, that isn't all they can do. Just take a read of the Stryker for an idea of how versatile the design can be. Skyshadows are good, but they suffer from a problem that a lot of non-land-based transports suffer from and that'd be load time. The Skyshadows need to land (or hover) in a vulnerable position while troops load into it (which may be as fast as a minute but probably longer and closer to 5 minutes), whereas a dedicated land-based APC takes, maybe, 20 seconds to load and roll out. Also, any aerial craft, no matter how advanced, will, by necessity, be less durable than a land based equivalent. It makes up for that by being faster and, well, aerial.

But I guess I'd be fine with going down to 40 (total, 32 bought). It is more than we have now and serves to bolster our response and lets troops redeploy quicker and more securely on a battlefield. I don't, however, really like the S9-RCVs as much. They may be, objectively, the faster and "better" transport unit but they're much more focused in scope and usage. They're just less versatile. SASAPCs are a workhorse, S9-RCVs are a race horse. Sure, the race horse may run fast but a workhorse is vastly more useful in day-to-day situations. So... if we go down to 40 SASAPCs, we don't have to get more S9-RCVs to compensate as I don't think they're much compensation and would rather put that money elsewhere.