Yesterday, I tried the Artillery wiht my Radio squad:
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 don’t 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 that’s 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 can’t see what part of my comment was that bad, and it hurts.
I’m sorry I said that.
Don’t cry balance because of realism because artillery shelling during WW1 with rolling/curtain fire was invented and used heavily there. I don’t care about artillery nerfs, I just have a problem with people having a scewed view on history
“Four 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. … In all, the British artillery fired 1.5 million shells in just four days.”
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. Let’s see. Ah, there:
The key words here are “preceded” and “began”.
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.
too bad this isn’t WWI
Artillery is fine now, yet the biggest problem has not been fixed. Bombs from planes.
Okay, so let’s 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. 
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. It’s when you start at the back and roll the artillery infront of your infantry while they advance to keep enemy’s down and obscure the assault , if you can’t be bothered to read go listed to Dan Carlin (Blueprint for Armageddon).
If they had artillery they used it, I’d they didn’t 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 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:
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.
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.
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.
yeah dude, a battle with hundreds of thousands of men is definitely a good comparison to a game that depics platoon level engagements.
At the least we have 40 soldiers on the battlefield with a max of 90, Per side.
But yeah we should have the same amount of artillery used for the BATTLE OF THE BULGE, which had roughly half a million participants.
Literally don’t even know why I responded, this argument is beyond stupid.
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.