Artillery absolutely belongs in Battlefield 6. Saying it can’t be iconic or unique because it doesn’t exist yet is a weak argument by that logic, nothing new should ever be added to Battlefield. Every iconic Battlefield feature, from jets to destruction physics, was not part of the game until it was introduced. Artillery has the same potential to redefine how long distance battles feel.
On movement and cover: destruction is exactly the point. When cover is temporary, players are forced to adapt, reposition, and think creatively, instead of camping in one safe place forever. This creates the dynamic battlefield flow that makes the franchise stand out. Mortars alone cannot provide this level of tension, scale, or environmental impact.
As for concerns about reloads and cooldowns: these are balancing tools, not punishments. Artillery is not meant to be spammed it’s meant to be a rare but decisive asset. Properly tuned, it adds strategy without burdening the team. Removing the idea entirely just because it requires thoughtful design is the real silly approach.
Battlefield has always thrived on ambition and combined arms depth. Without artillery, Battlefield 6 risks feeling like just another shooter, instead of pushing the boundaries of what makes the series truly unique !!!
Hello again,
I didn't say it can't be iconic or unique, I said it isn't iconic or unique because it hasn't been seen in game yet.
You seem to completely disregard the potential problem of all cover having been wiped out, possibly by artillery, at which point, no, artillery won't get people to move out of the artillery dead ground. This was attempted in World War 1 and it brought about the static trench warfare phenomena which, admittedly, was resolved by the introduction of the tank. Players shouldn't have to rely on constantly moving about to survive, sometimes you need to camp for a period of time to protect a flank, repair a vehicle, regenerate health, etc.
If you're going to make artillery a rare asset, it's going to have a premium on getting it destroyed which will make the user play it much more carefully, i.e. less willing to move and risk getting in the line of fire. Which, seemingly, counters your point about discouraging camping.
Sierra_SE Artillery doesn’t need to erase all cover to be effective, and it wouldn’t in Battlefield 6. The idea that artillery automatically leads to no cover and static trench warfare is historically inaccurate when applied to modern combined arms combat. Battlefield is not WW1—it’s a fast, dynamic game with tanks, helicopters, jets, rockets, and destructible environments. Artillery in this context would create movement, not stall it, because players would constantly need to reposition, flank, and counterattack instead of hiding in one spot forever.
Camping is already an issue in Battlefield, and artillery is actually one of the few mechanics that can break campers out of their safe zones. The premium on survival argument only proves my point: if artillery drivers are forced to play cautiously, then it’s balanced. If they overstay in base, they become useless to the team; if they move forward, they take risks and can be destroyed. Either way, there’s no problem.
What you call a weakness risk and counterplay is exactly why artillery needs to be in the game. It punishes static playstyles, adds strategic depth, and introduces a unique layer of combined arms that Battlefield is currently missing !!!
Hello again,
Correct, artillery doesn't need to erase all cover to be effective, but given enough time, it'll naturally happen due to fewer opportunities for cover = more people behind existing cover = more alluring target. Regarding your statement about trench warfare being historically inaccurate when applied to modern combined arms combat; I would like to call your attention to the current war in Ukraine where trenches are a defining feature.
You are correct that Battlefield 6 isn't WW1, but you still haven't presented a solution to the problem I mentioned about making constant movement necessary which isn't a feasible solution to countering artillery efficiency. Having to rely on constant moving and never standing still for fear of being killed by artillery, is not appealing gameplay.
At no point have I said or even implied that people should camp in one spot forever, in fact I hate camping, which is why I don't want to see artillery in this game. Artillery players playing cautiously is effectively synonymous to camping because the easiest way to play cautiously is to stay out of bounds, out of range, or out of sight of counters.
You seem to agree (without explicitly stating it) that people staying in spawn would become useless to the team, which I guarantee you would happen because of that premium on survival. A lot of players prefer to take as few risks as possible to maintain a high K/D.
I really don't see how this is so hard to understand. Reference Battlefield 4's implementation of the M142 HIMARS, people tended to just grab it, go back to base and stay there the rest of the game: because the game isn't static, it is mobile and thus the enemy will eventually come into range.
EDIT: I have apparently run out of available responses on the forum for today(?) so you'll have to wait until tomorrow to have answers.
