Can you please point to me to where I was saying it isn’t?
Again, you are talking about large-scale operations that took months to prepare where one or both sides knew it was coming and had time to bring ammunition to where it needs to be for the assault. And the shelling took place before the assault, not during it. If you read carefully, my two keypoints were:
Neither of the sides had unlimited ammunition
Shelling took place before the assault, not when there’s potentially friendly troops on the ground already.
The magnitude of this argument is way too much for my tiny brain, sorry.
– Common flu is bad
– Ha! You flatulent little illiterate prick, cancer is curable at certain stages!
– … Ok… I was talking about common flu and didn’t say anything about it being incurable, though…
– Cancer has more stats, so your argument is BS, go read books.
I honestly don’t know how to talk to you. I mean, you post a link that clearly says:
Barrages are usually integral with larger operations of multiple military formations, from divisions to armies, requiring days to weeks of preparation and exact planning.
And go: “See? When you say they didn’t have unlimited ammo, and that they didn’t shell friendly troops, and that large-scale operations are different from a few tactical groups operations you are full of it”. Ok, mate. It really IS me who is having a hard time understanding.
So when did I say they didn’t need preparation to shell millions of shells. Where did I say it was okay friendly fire. But for the amount of shelling we are experiencing we are not talking about millions of shells. The area from artillery bombardment is silly anyway, a group of 155s or 105s can shell the entire play area. But that would not be very fun.
But your argument is that artillery was not used in skirmishes like the ones we are experiencing. What were we experiencing before nerf, 300 shells in 20 minutes?
You see it as one small conflict with 1000 men, i see it as a battalion attacking another battalion to take a valuable target in a larger conflict. It might be 10 more battalions further up and down the line and we are supported by artillery.
Another of your arguments were that artillery was not actively used in assaults and you simply pre shelled the enemy. I give you information about creeping or rolling barrages.
So i disagree on your historical perspective but I think it was a good change for gameplay. Maybe 2 instead of 1 artillery strikes but other than that it’s fine as it is now.
It does not matter and you must know that. It was fun math with tons of assumptions to make me understand what does 1.5 million shells mean (a long ocean shore?), not a valid calculation, unfortunately the editors at the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society recognized the flaws you mentioned and refused my paper on it so I’ll need to spawn on their attic.
Btw. lone fighter was fun today. And I’m still desperately bad at this game.
Why is this all the time, this is how war is, do you believe 500 000 Americans sat on one side and 500 000 Germans sat on the other side shooting.
Most large battles, even known and decisive ones can be broken down into battalions, company’s and platoons. Where smaller or larger skrirmishes occur for key/strategic points.
Think of all the battles you have been fighting as something that is part of a larger conflict and not just your isolated little skrismish.
Tanks, CAS and artillery will make more sense then, as they get sent where they are needed.
Besides, I wouldn’t call them small either, some matches can have losses of up to 500 men in 20 minutes
These were my points that you were challenging. That’s basically all I said, except for “unlimited ammo”.
There’s no limit to where you can take your argument when you bring in “that’s how I see it” argument. Let’s operate with what is provable. Not every battle in WW2 was a massive Kursk/Rzhev/Normany/Battle of the Bulge assault. 90% of the battles were: “See that village on the other side of the river? We’ll be crossing the river in the next few days, we don’t need anyone firing at us from that perfect position. So you guys move in first and take it. They probably know we’ll be crossing here, so expect resistance.”
And I merely pointed out rolling barrages require preparation and careful planning, not a random radio operator going: “Here! Bomb here!”. Because he’d get a: “we are a artillery platoon, dude. We’ve got like 10 guns and a dog named Jeff. We ran out of water to pour onto the barrels to prevent overheating when you guys started calling every few seconds.”
I do appreciate the change of tone, though, for that I thank you (sincerely).
Haha, okay my main issue really is people calling this way or that with realism as a basis for their argument for the game .
As you said, Boris on the radio in Moscow calling danger close is not realistic. But the amount of artillery in a match is not impossible depending on location and scenario based on real life events.
But this is a game and balance needs to come before realism. Sometimes it’s more important what feels realistic enough and is still balanced. It not like there aren’t other things breaking realism. Like taking points and holding them instead of just folding the loosing team over and steamrolling them back further than where they spawn from. But no, if you go beyond the black line you are a deserter
In that case we should be on the same side, since the argument started with a guy going “how artillery is now (before the nerf) is realistic and perfect”, and we’re all just trying to show him that: a) It isn’t, and b) if it was, he wouldn’t like it, because nobody really wants realism in a game.
Let’s just call it a misunderstanding, dude, since we are ultimatelly arguing the same core concept that balance comes before realism in a game.
By that logic there should be no artillery or planes at all since they would be focusing on somewhere more important than these 150 man skirmishes we have.
We have a battalion with manpower of 1000 men during invasions. Losses from 20 - 30 minutes of conflicts are in the hundreds 250-500 men and during invasions 1000 men or more. (Reinforcments when you push)
The whole of D-Day was 4400-10000 allied losses. Do I need to say more?
, I wrote in all caps since you seem to have a hard time understanding.
we are not talking about millions of shells. The area from artillery bombardment is silly anyway, a group of 155s or 105s can shell the entire play area. But that would not be very fun.
