Adding Modern Artillery Vehicles (M142 HIMARS, MLRS) to Battlefield 6

6j3iu6kqks6z​ yes ahah jet’s explosion is small , it’s like 500 pund bomb , it should have 1000 or 2000 like it was in Battlefield 5 (V1 Rocket) . Do you rememeber this V1 Rocket’s explosion? That’s what jet needs 

BF6Anna_Grimes​ as game developer I would set 2000 pound guided JDAM on Jet but jet will be very dangerous :) 2000 pound rocket is massive bomb but I still like this idea.

Superficially this is an alright idea, but I feel like it is quite naive and ignorant of the realities of online play. Here's why:

• Artillery players would simply grab the HIMARS or equivalent artillery system and stay in their main base to, in effect, camp with impunity.
• Artillery as described by you and in the comments here would essentially be a doomsday weapon, with people insisting on massive explosions and extreme effect on target which, while realistic, doesn't make for very interesting gameplay on the receiving end.

Furthermore, I do not personally feel that the launch maps are large enough to lend itself well to the inclusion of highly capable artillery systems, like the HIMARS or its equivalents.

As for your "Why this matters" list, I'll present some counter-arguments:

1. Realism & Modern Warfare Representation - In current warfare, such as in Ukraine, artillery has a major role in the conduct of operations. However, these assets are pretty much never located even in proximity to the FLOT/FLET as would have to be the case in Battlefield. I would argue that seeing a HIMARS system would make the battlefield far less authentic and less relevant to today's use of artillery systems.
2. Strategic Depth - You're pretty spot on in this point, though as you mention "long-range strikes", I will refer back to my point about artillery players camping in main base with impunity.
3. Balanced Gameplay - This seems to disregard the implementation of ammunition resupply point being present in main base, thereby making the point about limited ammunition null and void. Long reload times, yes, could be an option. The need for spotters/drones for targeting is rendered inconsequential given the size of the maps relative to the range of the artillery system.
4. Unique Player Roles - Artillery would provide a new avenue for support players to contribute to the battlefield, but my concern, once again, is that they would do so from their main base with impunity.
5. Immersion & Variety - Introducing on-map artillery vehicles would not do much at all to make the match feel different and more unpredictable. Artillery would simply be another point of friction and annoyance to the recipient that can not retaliate against the sender.

I personally am not principally opposed to having artillery as an aspect of Battlefield games, but I am principally opposed to having them as on-map assets due to the extreme disregard of how these types of assets actually work.

I'd much rather see something like the BFV squad call-in system but for a Small Diameter Bomb (GBU-39 SDB) strike that could be intercepted by anti-air systems.

Sierra_SE​ 

I hear your concerns, but I have to disagree. Battlefield is not a military simulator it’s an action game, and part of that action should absolutely include the raw destructive power of artillery. Players already deal with tanks, jets, attack helicopters, and other unfair tools, yet the game is balanced around counterplay. Artillery should be no different. Camping from the main base is not a real issue if DICE simply designs it properly: limit the firing range, add long reloads, and give enemies recon tools to find and destroy the artillery. Problem solved. Saying it can’t work just because real HIMARS wouldn’t sit near the frontline misses the point  Battlefield has never been about 1:1 realism, it’s about large scale chaos and variety. Massive explosions and high impact strikes are exactly what makes Battlefield different from other shooters. Taking that away in the name of “balance” makes the game more bland, not better. If someone gets hit by artillery, that’s war just like when a tank shell, a jet bomb, or a sniper round takes you out. Battlefield is supposed to feel overwhelming and unpredictable, and artillery would make it even more so. So no, I don’t think artillery should be turned into just another squad call in. It deserves to be a playable, on map asset. With proper balancing, it would add excitement, immersion, and the kind of memorable moments Battlefield is known for.

Sierra_SE​ Hi dear !!! 

I don’t agree with your points. Battlefield 6 needs artillery because it adds dynamic environmental interaction, such as destroying cover, buildings, and terrain in ways other vehicles and weapons cannot. It also creates emergent gameplay, forcing players to adapt and change strategies on the fly instead of relying on static positions. Artillery can support objective-based modes, making large maps feel alive and contested rather than empty or predictable.

With careful balancing — limited ammo, moderate range, and vulnerability to counterplay — artillery would enhance teamwork, map control, and the overall intensity of the battles, without breaking the game. Removing it entirely would strip Battlefield 6 of one of its most strategic and memorable layers.

Sierra_SE​ 

I don’t agree with those who oppose artillery in Battlefield 6. Artillery isn’t just about raw firepower it creates moments of unpredictability, where players must constantly think about positioning and timing. It also connects distant parts of the map, allowing squads to support objectives that would otherwise feel isolated.

Artillery can reward skillful coordination, such as timing strikes with moving squads or disrupting enemy reinforcements, which adds a layer of strategy few other weapons provide. It also enhances immersion, making the battlefield feel alive and reactive, as explosions change sightlines, destroy cover, and force movement.

Without artillery, big distance battles risk becoming linear and predictable, with fewer strategic choices for players. Properly implemented, artillery enriches the flow of combat, encourages teamwork across distances, and creates memorable, high stakes moments !!! 

I strongly support adding artillery to Battlefield 6, but only if it is carefully balanced. Balanced artillery can provide massive strategic depth without breaking gameplay. By limiting ammo, controlling range, and requiring targeting tools like drones or spotters, artillery becomes a tactical asset rather than an overpowered weapon. When balanced properly, it encourages team coordination, forces players to think about positioning, and adds tension to large-scale battles. Players must weigh risk and reward: use artillery to support objectives but remain vulnerable to counterplay. 

Balanced artillery can reshape the battlefield dynamically—destroying cover or forcing movement—without dominating the map. It adds strategy, unpredictability, and immersion, while ensuring that no single player or squad can abuse it. In short, artillery in Battlefield 6 should be powerful yet fair, enhancing gameplay instead of frustrating it.

Hello,

I understand your stance but equating artillery, an indirect fire asset, to tanks, helicopters, etc is very simply an unfair comparison since these are direct-fire assets that require line of sight and therefore can be reacted to and avoided, whereas artillery is significantly more random in who it decides to smite or not.

Hello,

You still haven't solved the problem of camping in main base with your arguments. I maintain that artillery, an indirect fire weapon system not requiring line of sight, and with ballistic trajectories significantly steeper than any other platform, it would be an unfair asset to face for the player.

Hello, 

I still don't see how this is a fair element of gameplay, given that artillery can be out of range and out of line of sight and still kill you, while you are unable to reasonably detect or retaliate effectively. I don't want Battlefield matches to be centred around destroying artillery pieces.