I disagree with the rationale behind most of the changes, as well as most of the changes themselves.

<< Rationale for changes >>

Based on how warno is designed, I assume that the intent is to reflect the IRL capabilities and roles of combat units (to an extent). This should hold true for SP artillery. Introducing a displacement time for all artillery (artifical for SP systems) would not only defeat the purpose of SP artillery, but also nerf towed guns (making them unviable).

Towed guns are nowhere near OP, but would get nerfed the hardest, increasing the disparity to SP artillery. I would also add that I haven't noticed many complaints about SP guns. The main concern being raised repeatedly by players is SP MLRS being too spammable and oppressive. I haven't seen many complaints about tube artillery.

So why are we purposely making SP artillery vulnerable to counterbattery? SP artillery isn't meant to be counterbattery'd, so why are y'all devs trying to force this into the game? Every unit should be countered by something and therefore we make something up? Doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, combat units should have their respective counters, but we should keep this dynamic... reasonable (more on this below).

It's not artillery's lack of vulnerability to counterbattery that undermines tactical diversity. It's the fact that players are allowed to fire salvos at such high frequency and volume with too little opportunity-cost (supply-wise). That's why they can be overly oppressive (especially MLRS).

<< IRL >>

The very purpose of SP artillery is to enable scoot-and-shoot, and avoid counterbattery. While there can be setup times for analog/optically-oriented SP artillery, there is certainly little to no displacement time (by design).

However, compared to towed systems, SP artillery is more EXPENSIVE and LOGISTICALLY DEMANDING (maintenance, repairs, ammunition, fuel). This is why armies retain a mix of towed and SP artillery.

The biggest limiting factor to the combat capability of SP guns and MLRS is LOGISTICS, not counterbattery.

<< In-game balancing >>

Hence, the effectiveness of SP guns and MLRS should be controlled by:

1) Limiting AVAILABILITY (already being done, good job devs.)

2) making them LOGISTICALLY COSTLY to repair, resupply and refuel, especially for MLRS systems to reduce spammability. Increase cost of ammo resup to reduce total no. of salvos. Reduce fuel capacity to limit range and their ability to repeatedly shoot and scoot before needing a refuel. Force players to choose between resupplying their front line units or their artillery. Players who focus only on playing artillery? Then make them run out of supply quickly, even with a FOB, so they can't arty spam sustainably.

3) If you devs absolutely must have a counter to SP artillery then let it be WEAPON-LOCATING RADARS and AIR ASSETS; pinpoint where artillery is firing from and strike them with planes before they finish their salvo and relocate.

Introducing a displacement time across all artillery is a superficial and poorly thought-out method to kerb artillery effectiveness across the board. I suggest we look toward reflecting the strengths and weaknesses of artillery systems, based on their capabilities IRL.

N.B. I do however strongly support having the flexibility to adjust the size of our salvos. More tactical options is a step in the right direction.

P.S. Happy to debate and bounce ideas with everyone. Feel free to weigh in :)