I’ve seen a lot of people lately that were asking for friendly fire damage on artillery to fix the issue, and I really think that friendly fire damage is NOT the solution.
The artillery spam is absolutely ridiculous in the current state. Wiping out tons of people, destroying all cover and fortifications, and being constantly rained down by even just a pair of radio operator squads that don’t even need line of sight, without any counter.
My Suggestion:
Do not allow it to target objective zones.
You can still target groups coming in from behind, in front, or on the sides.
This would prevent a myriad of issues.
Artillery spam at the start of the game that kills defenders that were force spawned there.
Constant spam keeping you from approaching as its raining down on all sides of an objective.
Stopping defenders from being able to set up fortifications as it instantly breaks anything it hits.
Forces players to actually use their brains when calling in artillery, not just automatically targeting objective.
Forces players to push in to attack open area objectives, rather than just shelling it and then pushing in.
Arty is already super nerfed, there’s no need to nerf it anymore than that.
Else, they should just remove the function entirely.
It’s strange suggesting another nerf to it, when on the other side you push for the implementation of large mine bags that would allow 18 AP per squad…
intel
You can be quite sure enemies are at the objective. But you don’t really have any other good info where the enemy is.
Ppl don’t mark and even if they would, marker is delayed, stationary and you have no idea if 20 or 2 enemies are marked.
suppression
Arty covers the whole objective so it’s a great tool to neutralise deffenders when you atack.
Enemies risk death meanwhile your friends can storm the objective without being shot at from the objective.
no better alternative
If not the objective, what will you shoot at?
You may shell approach lines but tge main spawn is protected by grayzone and rallies you have to find (and you will probably just shoot/grenade it).
It’s obvious you will drop artyllery barrage on the most fortified enemy position you have to take.
Your idea adress non of the above reasons (and there are probably more).
You want to fix symptom, not cause.
Radio operators get the luxury of being able to call in a massive amount of damage in a wide area without even having to make line of sight to the enemy. Something that is done even better than mortar squads, which is a support class that you have to manually control and only does about 10% of what artillery does.
Therefore, radio operators have one of the strongest types of SUPPORT without having to sacrifice anything. If you think intel is an issue, set up on the flank, use binoculars or a sniper rifle, get your own intel.
Does it remove you from the fight? Yes, a bit. However, I feel that’s how it should be for that amount of firepower.
Either use teamwork for the intel, or not be able to attack directly with the squad while still having full function.
That’s one of the main issues that I have with it. There is absolutely NOTHING that defenders can do to counter it. Allowing for attackers to keep the defenders back, walk in, and take the place over with little to nothing stopping them. All the barricades are even broken allowing full access to the objective, all from one single players attack, that doesn’t really cost anything. It’s FAR too powerful.
It would be one thing if it injured teammates, not letting them attack at the same time, but I feel like that would cause even more issues when people fire it off constantly like they do.
There is plenty of other area to shoot at. The main spawn greyzone line is generally 100m or more from the objective. Anywhere in there you are able to hit with artillery.
Incoming reinforcements are fair game
Machinegun nests and flank positions
Fortified approaches, breaking barbwire, czech hedgehogs, and other fortifications out in front of the objective (if they ever get a chance to put them up).
I get the thought process, but in its current state, there are NO fortifications that can stand up against even 1 artillery strike, let alone multiple. If there were, I would agree. So until there are stronger fortifications that can actually survive against even some bombardment, I believe the best option is to not allow the direct bombardment of the objective with artillery strikes.
It would also make mortar squads more valuable again, as they wouldn’t have the restriction.
How is it strange? Defense LITERALLY is not allowed to DEFEND currently! Fortifications are a joke and are destroyed by pretty much any nearby explosion, especially artillery strikes. At least with mines it would give a chance to defenders to hold back the attackers a little bit.
I don’t see you pushing for anything that helps level the playing field at all. Only things that help offense.
Last time I measured it, the whole battlefield was 100-200m deep. So you have 100m maximum between objective and greyzone. And this is heavily depend on the map.
Much less targets/potentiall kills.
Not worth the effort.
I agree constant bombardment of the point is annoying but atm taking away this target will basically cause ppl to not use this class/squad.
I know some ppl are ok with that but I’m not a dick and I won’t nerf other ppls toys just because.
Yet you are fine with engineers being incapable of building anything durable…
How about AA guns actually being able to take down aircraft?
Teamwork DOES exist in this game. Just because some of the playerbase decides to play solo, doesn’t mean the whole game should be centered around solo gameplay. There are a lot of players that play with 2-3 man groups, not to mention those that play as full 4 man groups.
“I love spamming mines everywhere, we should be able to spam more!”
…
Yeah, no. (Also for your info, both attackers and defenders can use arty)
It lacks credibility. You want to make disappear a mechanic you hate and think is “cancer” (it’s not, it’s really tame nowadays) and replace it by another cancerous mechanic, mine spam.
I don’t know if you are just trolling, or don’t see the double standards in your own words.
Both CAN use artillery, but it is by far the most effectively used by offense, directly against defenders on the objective.
I’m not saying “remove it entirely”, I’m saying make it unable to directly target the objective.
I’m all for not allowing mines directly on the objective as well IFwe were allowed more mines.
I find it absolutely absurd that grenades are as versatile as they are and still get a pouch to let you hold 3, yet the same courteousy is not extended to those that wish to use mines, despite mines only really being useful for defense.
Overall artillery on its own is very weak since them nerfs, however because it still functions as a “nobrainer” area denial tool + it destroys radios build in the open, buffing it will result in too much spam.
I like it the way it is, punishes reckless radio placement.
Artillery shouldn’t be able to shell the point of interest as a fix?
That makes no logical sense. I know this is a game but the game tends to work in some aspects how it would realistically.
Artillery is dropped, the enemy is shaken or dead, and then the charge goes in and the rest are wiped out.
Artillery shouldn’t be nerfed even more so than it already has been.
I would however propose a compromise where you can build better fortifications to hide from it a bit more effectively.
Alternatively, let me introduce you to the most simple multi tool of the Allied/ Axis nations combined, the shovel. Not only is it deadly, you can dig trenches with it. If you actually use the shovel (in an area where you can, I do understand there are some areas you can’t), you’ll find it is not only nice to keep cover from fire, but it makes almost all explosions, even 500lbs right beside you, non-existent. Just go full prone before it lands and you’re fine!