Look at the video in my OP, if you think people there were ādumb enough to get mass killed by artyā youāre a joke of a person, clearly decieving yourself to try to justify your broken, un-fun mechanic that I would be surprised if it wasnāt your main go-to strategy to get kills, since im guessing youāre a bit useless at being a good team-player otherwise.
I could do this but choose not to because I know how bad it feels to be on the receiving end of this. Also can be a bit boring playing vehicles a the time. Plus you cant train your regular troops to max them out if you donāt use them.
Maybe you would, if you select the location carefully. But you would not find 2x1000 sensible human beings willing to enter that region repeatedly during bombardment, not even if they risk being sent to jail/killed by their superiors.
You realize logistics was an issue and priority of fires is an entire study of doctrine right?
Little knowledge and a lot of confidence is both dangerous and annoying.
Yesterday, I tried the Artillery wiht my Radio squad:
- You cant use Arti 60sec after spawn is okay to meāļø
- Only one artillery volley available at a time, is not bad, but 2 would be better
- Im happy there is no more 4 or more red circle always in the field, when you shooting/make tactics somewhere
With these nerfs, the high damage of artillery is fine now, if the use of that rare like this.
Now that you remind me. 
I know, but please point out the error in my comment or my level of knowledge of war doctrine will not rise.
What I tried to say is that I donāt suppose in WW2 there were several 15x15m artillery emplacements bombarded by artillery simultaneously by both sides nonstop, while both sides tried to push in at least 5 of their man to said 15x15m, willing to sacrifice 1000 of their manforce for that location. If artillery/planes/infantry was good enough to finish off the defended artillery emplacement, next the region was to be fortified and cleaned up, and nobody cared about the exact spot that much afterwards. At least thatās what I think.
There are those times when things go bad, but not 24/7 everywhere as it happened in-game for a while.
Your post is hard to read. Sorry.
Sorry for my English.
Can you tell me what made you write that little knowledge + much confidence is dangerous? I agree with that statement, but canāt see what part of my comment was that bad, and it hurts.
1 Like
Iām sorry I said that.
Donāt cry balance because of realism because artillery shelling during WW1 with rolling/curtain fire was invented and used heavily there. I donāt care about artillery nerfs, I just have a problem with people having a scewed view on history
āFour days of heavy shelling preceded the infantry assault in the Somme sector. A thousand artillery pieces targeted a 25,000-yard stretch of the German line, the weapons ranging from trench mortars to 60-pounders and huge, 15-inch howitzers. ā¦ In all, the British artillery fired 1.5 million shells in just four days.ā
65 million artillery shells in 11 months.
Battle of the Bulge in WW2
On 16 December 1944 at 05:30, the Germans began the assault with a massive, 90-minute artillery barrage using 1,600 artillery pieces.
Ok. Letās see. Ah, there:
The key words here are āprecededā and ābeganā.
Plus, are you seriously trying to compare decicive battles, like Somme or Battle of the Bulge to our operations that normally involve a few tactical groups? Surely not, it must me my skewed view of history.
1 Like
too bad this isnāt WWI
Artillery is fine now, yet the biggest problem has not been fixed. Bombs from planes.
1 Like
Okay, so letās say on Vysokovo villlage first cap point we have a 100m patch of that 23000 meters, meaning 1.5M / 230 = 6500 shells in 4 days . One artillery attack in-game should contain at least 10 shells I guess, meaning I should not get more than 650 artillery bombardments in-game 4 days, or 162/day. So if I play 12 hours a day, matches averaging 20 minutes, I expect to get 162 / (12*3) = 4 artillery strikes in a 20 minute match. Deal.
So bad that I can play daily 2-3 matches, that would result in 50 arty strikes per match. 
1 Like
Agreed
You said ANY war and battle of the bulge was in WW2, this was just a few examples where a LARGE quantity of shells were used and pre shelling positions before attacking. Rolling artillery is still used today. Itās when you start at the back and roll the artillery infront of your infantry while they advance to keep enemyās down and obscure the assault , if you canāt be bothered to read go listed to Dan Carlin (Blueprint for Armageddon).
If they had artillery they used it, Iād they didnāt they used mortars. Now, from a gameplay perspective the artillery changes were needed. But your historical argument is pure flatulence 
Do you think artillery was spread evenly over the front or do you think spotters focused artillery on enemy activity. Valuable targets and critical points?
Flawed math
If your would read who I replied to it might more sense to you. The person implied this much artillery was not used in ANY war.
But because obviously someone like you would reply I also included the battle of the bulge from WW2 as another example.
Now some people might cry over it being decisive and large scale battles and not some shitty barn like in enlisted. Well Im sorry, well known battles have the most statistics and data gathered.
WW1 up to 1 billion shells were fired in the conflict. WW2, no reliable statistic for total shells.
Can you please point to me to where I was saying it isnāt?
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 thereās potentially friendly troops on the ground already.
The magnitude of this argument is way too much for my tiny brain, sorry.
ā Common flu is bad
ā Ha! You flatulent little illiterate prick, cancer is curable at certain stages!
ā ā¦ Okā¦ I was talking about common flu and didnāt say anything about it being incurable, thoughā¦
ā Cancer has more stats, so your argument is BS, go read books.
1 Like
FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS OF CREEPING BARRAGES
USED AT THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE! READ THE BOOK!
Here you go big brain 
, I wrote in all caps since you seem to have a hard time understanding.