Why is Battlefield 1 not in any way, shape, or form like WW1

[theUSguy425]

I honestly don't think they even tried to make it seem like WW1 at all. I know WW1 is boring, but games like Verdun pull it off really well.

Instead, we have black Germans sprinting around with Italian semi-autos and machine guns that would break someone's back if he carried it on his own for a bit.

And the worst disservice I've seen from gameplay, no use of trenches. The biggest thing about the war isn't there.

[Yielding]

I think making the game's every detail relevant to WWI would make it a bit boring.

[76109108007942031]

Because they need to appeal to the kids, and they don't want to use bolt-action guns and fight in trenches.

I still think they should've at the very least set it in WWII, that way the amount of full-auto guns won't seem as out of place.

[Ironclad]

Dont't forget they made American army important...and they barely even fought in WW1.

[76109108007942031]

Originally posted by YieldingBusiness:

I think making the game's every detail relevant to WWI would make it a bit boring.

Then don't make a WWI game, simple as that. If they really want to keep the "machine guns everywhere" theme going they should pick a different setting.

[76109108007942031]

Originally posted by Ironclad:

Dont't forget they made American army important...and they barely even fought in WW1.

And left Austria-Hungary out. Yes, the one that first declared war is left out of the game.

[Yielding]

Originally posted by Sir Illic:

Originally posted by YieldingBusiness:

I think making the game's every detail relevant to WWI would make it a bit boring.

Then don't make a WWI game, simple as that. If they really want to keep the "machine guns everywhere" theme going they should pick a different setting.

What about the part where you eat and drink? Or fight off disease? Or try to recover from PTSD? You gotta care for your character too! I DEMAND ANSWERS!

[Jej]

I don't care that it isn't *really* WWI. It looks fun and it's good enough for me.

[theUSguy425]

Originally posted by Jej:

I don't care that it isn't *really* WWI. It looks fun and it's good enough for me.

But they didn't try to even make it look like WW1 in the slightest. It looks like a reskined WW2.

[C4Warr10r]

If it were realistic, between 60 and 90 percent of the players would be killed by artillery in the lobby.

[Jej]

Originally posted by theUSguy425:

Originally posted by Jej:

I don't care that it isn't *really* WWI. It looks fun and it's good enough for me.

But they didn't try to even make it look like WW1 in the slightest. It looks like a reskined WW2.

I'd rather have that over a futuristic setting.

Originally posted by C4Warr10r:

If it were realistic, between 60 and 90 percent of the players would be killed by artillery in the lobby.

And maybe 20% of them would be gased by their own teammates.

[Maccykung]

Meh, the accuracy of it doesn't hinder it for me at all. Let Dice have their creative freedom.

[😼Studio Cat😼]

Yeah. This question seems weird. Battlefield is a fast-paced team-based shooter. Something WW1 based games would not be.

It should have as much to do with WW1 as "Black Adder Goes Forth"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeF1JO7Ki8E

[C4Warr10r]

Well, there were fast-paced skirmishes in WW2, particularly in North Africa, The Middle East, and somewhat on the Eastern Front, as well as many in the opening days of the German drive through Beligum into France. I doubt anyone lugged a Lewis Gun to any of them, but they happened.

Still, in order to make a good game in an iconic setting, I'm sure DICE had to pull a lot of this stuff. I mean, since when were Zeppelins ever used to bomb trenches? Never, because they'd be torn apart by flak.

Despite that, a Zeppelin ominously hanging over the battlefield looks super-cool, so Zeppelins. And then tanks that are far more effective than their real-life counterparts, and guys toting water-cooled machine-guns, and all that jazz.

I would also like it to be a bit more historically styled, US Guy, but at the end of the day none of these war games are even a little realistic. Trust me, they wouldn't be any fun if they were.

[76561198205901381]

Originally posted by C4Warr10r:

If it were realistic, between 60 and 90 percent of the players would be killed by artillery in the lobby.

Roughly 50% of the German casualties were by enemy artillery.

[C4Warr10r]

Originally posted by Pork Eating Crusader:

50% of the German casualties were by enemy artillery.

The figure was a very broad average from all sides, I didn't figure out the German average alone, though they reported as high as 85%.

Overall, though, it wouldn't surprise me if their casualties from artillery fire were lower. German trench systems were better due to a tenet we now hold in modern warfare: "Never stop improving your position." Unlike the Allies, they didn't stop at wood-reinforcement, large sections of the German line were improved by concrete, with deep bunkers.

Additionally, the Germans were not prone to the human-wave attacks that eventually made the French refuse to attack at all. They tried a few, but most German offensive action was spearheaded by Pionere brigades equipped with grenades and mortars to provide their own local fire support in a massively concentrated effort. "Bite off a piece and chew" was the terminology used in the book "Cataclysm."

Finally, the Germans had better artillery to begin with. Unlike the direct-fire French 75mm guns, the Germans focused on the indirect fire of howitzers, which made their weapons more effective until America entered. At that point, numbers alone were enough.