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.
The Ukraine comparison doesn’t work here because Battlefield is not a real world war simulator, it’s a balanced combined arms game where systems are designed for gameplay, not for perfect realism. Artillery in Battlefield 6 wouldn’t erase all cover because cover is constantly shifting due to destructible environments, dynamic objectives, and vehicle combat. Constant movement is already core to Battlefield snipers, tanks, air vehicles, grenades, and explosives already force players to move or die, artillery simply adds another tactical layer. The claim that artillery users will just camp ignores the fact that developers can hard limit base use by restricting artillery firing arcs, enforcing out of bounds zones, and making resupply and repair only possible outside of spawn. This instantly eliminates base camping as a viable strategy. Furthermore, if a player insists on hiding artillery in spawn, they are effectively useless to their team and turn into wasted resources exactly the opposite of a powerful exploit. As for the Battlefield 4 HIMARS example, that was an underdeveloped and unbalanced implementation from years ago; Battlefield 6 has the opportunity to learn from that failure and properly balance artillery with modern mechanics such as limited ammo, drone spotting, cooldowns, and vulnerability to air and armor strikes. The real issue is not that artillery cannot work, it’s that you’re refusing to acknowledge how easily it can be balanced with simple design decisions. Saying artillery doesn’t belong in Battlefield because some players camp is like saying tanks or snipers don’t belong either yet they’ve been staples of the franchise for decades
Sierra_SE Artillery not belonging in Battlefield is simply false because it has already been a part of the franchise in both Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4, with systems like the M142 HIMARS and mobile artillery vehicles being fully playable. The idea that artillery would automatically break gameplay ignores the fact that DICE already balanced it years ago by limiting ammo, requiring cooldowns, and making it vulnerable to armor, aircraft, and infantry explosives. If artillery truly created unplayable camping, then Battlefield 3 and 4 would have been broken titles but they weren’t, and both games remain some of the most iconic in the franchise. Claiming that artillery leads to trench warfare or forces nonstop movement doesn’t hold up, because those problems never existed in BF3 or BF4, where artillery encouraged counterplay, flanking, and vehicle coordination. The spawn camping argument also collapses, because those older games showed that artillery sitting in base was ineffective and quickly destroyed by air power or armor.
Battlefield 6 doesn’t need to invent artillery from scratch; it only needs to refine and modernize what has already worked in past titles. Saying artillery doesn’t belong in Battlefield 6 is the same as denying the franchise’s own history, because artillery has already proven itself as a legitimate and balanced part of Battlefield gameplay
Sierra_SE If artillery truly didn’t belong in Battlefield, then Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4 would have been failures, yet both featured artillery are still considered the gold standard of the franchise. Battlefield 6 refusing to include it would not be progress it would be regression…
