The entire point of your proposals is fundamentally flawed as it runs completely counter to what this game is. I’m not going to argue if more players want faster or slower gameplay since that is a fruitless argument, however even if a sizable amount of people want something that doesn’t mean that group of people is simply incorrect. In this situation, I would argue that is the case for a few reasons. Primarily, the core mechanics around combat in this game fit a more fast-paced game, as the freely accessible vehicles, low ammo counts of most guns, the (mostly) evenly matched population for teams and the simple nature of the core game modes lending themselves to a faster style of gameplay. Many of your proposed changes would have to irreparably affect core mechanics as a whole, fundamentally changing the nature of the game. While yes there is some aspect of the slower fortification gameplay that your ilk keeps clamoring for, these are secondary to the core aspects of the game that are still focused on maintaining and stalling momentum, and in fact, these compromises only help make the fundamental point of the game in line with that vision.
Your ilk keeps depicting everyone who opposes your changes as brain-dead zerg rushers who spam meta weapons, but that is simply not the case. The gameplay we have already rewards flanking and clever use of the terrain, it simply just doesn’t reward it in the way you want it to. Paratroopers landing off to the side can quickly gain a vantage point and stall an attack, and securing a flank allows for the ability to attack odd angles and quickly overwhelm the defenders. There is thought put behind the type of gameplay we have currently, you just don’t want to think that way.
Not in the way you want depicted in game, these fortifications would take months on end to make, and if tthey were overwhelmed there would often not be an ability to recuperate even within the battle. As such, having all the defenders spawn on the point in the first few moments on maps like D-Day or Fortified District is probably a better example of this than a bunch of players spamming barbed wire and sandbags.
The things you list only serve to demonstrate my point, as the point of them is not to force people to play smarter, but instead serve as tools to reduce the attacker’s momentum. Again, momentum is the fundamental way this game is played, and by simply removing momentum as an option like you want, you irreparably change the game. Maybe you want a different game, and that is fine. However, asking a game change fundamentally for your own preference is arrogant beyond all measure.
No, if two equally competent teams meet and the teams are not both criminally incompetent, Defenders win 9/10 times as the advantages offered by the game simply outclasses any advantage the Attackers have. Defenders have unlimited tickets and the ability to run out the clock while the Attackers can only rely on the momentum that they themselves build. As such, when two equally competent teams meet, it is common for defenders to win within the first or second point as leveraging their advantages to stall the attacker’s momentum before it gets going is far easier than actually starting up your momentum. Yes, once you get your momentum going it’s hard for the defenders to keep up, but this is the only reason the defender/attacker dichotomy is even remotely balanced now that ticket tweaking is a thing of the past. To simply remove this one thing the attackers have left in their toolbox is favouring the defenders so much so that the game has to be fundamentally restructured.
It’s a cheap kill that is the only explosive from the start of OBT that has been untouched despite all of them all being blatantly OP. They need a nerf.
Grenades are the fastest way of doing that, and it’s not even a competition. Furthermore, your ilk advocates for not just grenades having less effect on fortifications, but slowing down every way to take them down, completely obliterating any momentum that the attackers can have, which again raises the attacker/defender momentum dichotomy.
It is not simply the run and gun aspect of the game that would suffer from these additions, but again also the fundamental dichotomy between the attackers and defenders.
I see people using AT guns to shell points with HE all the time, I see Ampolents being used as psudo mortars and I see people using AA guns both for their intended purpose, and with a shovel to tilt them to face downwards so they can shoot at infantry. There are still niches for engineers in the game right now, just not the niches you want.
The rewards for building them should be a joke, otherwise people will spam them in stupid places and not contribute anything. The rewards for them being actually used is a different story. You get an assist’s worth of score every time a bullet strikes a sandbag in the proximity of an ally, whenever one uses mounted weapons you built or whenever an enemy walks through your barbed wire. You get about half a kill’s worth of score for ammo box and rally usage, and if you got any more people would simply start to exploit them like they exploited the medic boxes when they gave a full kill worth of score whenever an ally used them.
They didn’t play into combat in the way you think. Furthermore, this game will never see things like B-17s and Sturmtigers, as they simply do not fit the tactical level and momentum based gameplay. Likewise, buildable Flak 88s and 155mm artillery should never be added as they simply do not have any place in a game like this. So if fundamental aspects of the war need to be removed from the game for exclusively gameplay reasons, is it not reasonable to change up other aspects for the sake of gameplay? Considering this is a game, the answer should be yes.
Which is exactly why there is such backlash to your ideas because it would fundamentally change the game to something it isn’t.
In short, the changes you ask for fundamentally go against the core mechanics of the game, and would practically require an entirely different game. As such, is it not unreasonable for people who enjoy the game as it is now to not want to play a fundamentally different game? Maybe this isn’t the game for you and if so fine, but don’t ruin it for the people whose game it is. There are other alternatives like HLL or Post Scriptum Squad '44 and you should go try those instead of asking for another game to fundamentally change to your liking.