Stationary drones (autonomous turrets/aimbots) will always be cheaper and/or more powerful than mobile ones, AND more adapted for the particular terrain they’re installed in. A “swarm” of drones attacking an area that’s defended by equal cost of installed turrets and anti-drone devices is doomed to failure.
City streets will be defended by lasers or miniguns on every streetlamp, _AND_ by a force of good-guy drones that can be rapidly dispatched to areas that need additional force.
But really, our modeling starts to break down when we extrapolate this far. What does “winning” mean for attacking drones?
I mean, I did say as much in the OP basically. Defense is always more cost-efficient than offense; the problem is that when you sacrifice your mobility you have to spread out your forces whereas the enemy can concentrate theirs.
For attacking drones, winning means the same thing it usually does. I don’t see how it would be different.
Stationary drones (autonomous turrets/aimbots) will always be cheaper and/or more powerful than mobile ones, AND more adapted for the particular terrain they’re installed in. A “swarm” of drones attacking an area that’s defended by equal cost of installed turrets and anti-drone devices is doomed to failure.
City streets will be defended by lasers or miniguns on every streetlamp, _AND_ by a force of good-guy drones that can be rapidly dispatched to areas that need additional force.
But really, our modeling starts to break down when we extrapolate this far. What does “winning” mean for attacking drones?
I mean, I did say as much in the OP basically. Defense is always more cost-efficient than offense; the problem is that when you sacrifice your mobility you have to spread out your forces whereas the enemy can concentrate theirs.
For attacking drones, winning means the same thing it usually does. I don’t see how it would be different.