Battlefield 1 - set in World War 1

[Morgoth]

DICE doesn't give much of a shit about historical accuracy.

 

[Irenaeus]

I think DICE primarily wants cool and dynamic battle scenery/maps, and the mudfests on the French & Russian fronts just wasn't that interesting.... from a gameplay standpoint.

The Americans only fought in France in WWI, so that's obviously not a concern. And the Eastern front had some of the largest cavalry battles in history.

Was the military the Americans provided any relevant to the outcome of the war? I mean, I can only remember Walt Disney driving an ambulance and losing his virginity, but other than that was there any contribution?

PS: Not talking about material help, but military assistance.

 

[Spectacle]

I think DICE primarily wants cool and dynamic battle scenery/maps, and the mudfests on the French & Russian fronts just wasn't that interesting.... from a gameplay standpoint.

The Americans only fought in France in WWI, so that's obviously not a concern. And the Eastern front had some of the largest cavalry battles in history.

Was the military the Americans provided any relevant to the outcome of the war? I mean, I can only remember Walt Disney driving an ambulance and losing his virginity, but other than that was there any contribution?

PS: Not talking about material help, but military assistance.

The main effect of the US entry in the war was that it made it absolutely clear that Germany could not win a war of attrition. The Entente aready had the upper hand by that time so German defeat was quite likely, but the US joining the war forced Germany into going on the offense on a slim hope of settling the war before significant numbers of American troops could arrive in France. This failed of course, but the war might have laste several years longer if Germany had focussed less on offense and more on defense.

 

[Hoodoo]

I think DICE primarily wants cool and dynamic battle scenery/maps, and the mudfests on the French & Russian fronts just wasn't that interesting.... from a gameplay standpoint.

They're going to cover the Western Front but African Americans will be doing all the fighting somehow. A minority of a minor player in the war.

 

[Morgoth]

:incloosive:

 

[J_C]

Where is the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy? We basicly ignited WW1!

It's there under Austria Hungary.

Silly me didn't check the bigger picture showing that, just the quote under it. So finally I can play as a hungarian in a Battlefield game. Fuck yeah!

 

[Hoodoo]

Most of the American audience doesn't expect a Black man in the middle of trench warfare and a muslim warrior woman either. Yet here we are.

At this point it's blatant agenda driven subversion. I wonder who could be behind thi...

DICE are Swedish

Oh.

 

[Alienman]

Like this have anything to do with being Swedish. It's a western thing. We are seeing it in everything now, regardless of country.

 

[DosBuster]

"pushing an agenda"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

 

[Edward The Mediocre]

Like this have anything to do with being Swedish. It's a western thing. We are seeing it in everything now, regardless of country.

Well I would be more surprised if a swedish company didn't do this, since they are the mecca of progressive bullshit after all.

 

[Lyric Suite]

The black guy in the cover is pretty stupid but the Mudslime warrior wimmin is just derpy as shit.

 

[imweasel]

Most of the American audience doesn't expect a Black man in the middle of trench warfare and a muslim warrior woman either. Yet here we are.

At this point it's blatant agenda driven subversion. I wonder who could be behind thi...

DICE are Swedish

Oh.

Sweden is crumbling down around them and turning a bit more into Swedanistan every day thanks to uncontrolled mass migration from 3rd world countries, yet DICE still feels obligated to pander to Muslims and any other fucker with dark skin for some reason. The setting is World War fucking I FFS.

 

[Valestein]

I think DICE primarily wants cool and dynamic battle scenery/maps, and the mudfests on the French & Russian fronts just wasn't that interesting.... from a gameplay standpoint.

The Americans only fought in France in WWI, so that's obviously not a concern. And the Eastern front had some of the largest cavalry battles in history.

There was (at least) a U.S regiment that served on the Italian front -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vittorio_Veneto, and there were USN vessels deployed against Austria-Hungary and Germany in the Adriatic and the Med.

Edit: And not having France and Russia in this game would be hella lame. The Russians would be worth it just to have access to the Wincester 1895 lever action rifle.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

The Americans only fought in France in WWI, so that's obviously not a concern. And the Eastern front had some of the largest cavalry battles in history.

Strictly speaking, there were also American troops in Italy and Russia. In the former case, they did take part in the battles that resulted in the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian forces towards the end of 1918, but American troops were a smaller factor on the Italian front than French and British troops, much less Italian. In Russia, small numbers of American troops arrived in the White Sea and Pacific coastal areas in 1918, but of course they weren't there to fight against the Central Powers.

Was the military the Americans provided any relevant to the outcome of the war? I mean, I can only remember Walt Disney driving an ambulance and losing his virginity, but other than that was there any contribution?

PS: Not talking about material help, but military assistance.

The United States only had a small standing army (approximately 100,000 strong) when it entered the war and as a consequence was slow to provide tangible military aid in terms of men rather than material. Although a mere 175,000 Americans had arrived in France by the end of 1917, the inflow of men greatly accelerated around May 1918 to over 200,000 per month.

Faster aid was provided by the US Navy, which joined the campaign against U-boats, providing protection for convoys of ships crossing the Atlantic. As a consequence, the tonnage of British ships lost fell by almost half from the second quarter (its peak) to the fourth quarter of 1917 and further in 1918. Thus, US entry into the war almost immediately eliminated the possibility of Germany defeating Britain through its own, U-boat blockade.

Knowing that US troops were about to arrive at a more rapid rate, Ludendorff launched his last-ditch offensive to achieve victory on the Western Front in March 1918. An opinion as to whether the United States played a decisive role in the war is largely determined by whether you think that Germany would have succeeded with a similar, if somewhat later, offensive in the absence of American forces. Personally, I think the British and French armies would have been able to stymie any Germany offensive in 1918 even without American support and absorb the 100,000 deaths suffered by American forces.

By 1918, the economies of the Central Powers were tottering, as food and energy became increasingly scarce despite ever-stricter rationing. Civilian discontent mounted, while soldiers abandoned hope of victory and carried out a "strike from the front" with rising rates of shirking and desertion. The revolution in Germany was triggered by the mutiny of the common sailors of its fleet, but spread to civilians and then throughout Germany in a matter of days. Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire had already reached an armistice with the Allies by the end of October after their own setbacks, and Austro-Hungarian forces on the Italian front were surrendering en masse. Morale might not have dipped as much if America hadn't entered the war, and Germany wouldn't have collapsed quite as early as it did historically, but I don't think it would have lasted economically through the winter of 1918-1919, and certainly wouldn't have had the material resources to effectively continue the war.

In short, the question of whether American entry affected the outcome of the war depends primarily on whether it prevented a German victory on the Western front in 1918 and secondarily on how much it affected naval matters (not directly military but relating to the dueling blockades). My view is that it merely hastened German collapse by a few months.

 

[Makabb]

Trailer after a week now has 30 million views.

Gta 5 reached that number after 2 years.

 

[Hoodoo]

Just like in WW2 we often forget the power of trade and lend leases. The Americans (and south Americans, Scandinavians...) provided massive loans and trade freebies to France and the British. In that way their intervention was already in effect since 1914. The British blockade is to credit for this, making Germany unable to obtain resources from these same players. While Britain had used up its pool of volunteer and wasn't able to apply conscription very well, France still had enough manpower to draw from for an offensive on the Western front (which Petain was willing to do without American help). That's not mentioning the hundred of thousands soldiers freed up from the Balkan, Italy and the Levant once Austria Hungary and the Ottomans Empire would collapse or surrender.

The American intervention only served to save Germany if anything. A dual though costly victory of France and England and a peace conference without the American president sitting at the center would have only led France to claim more land or force the dismantling of the German Empire. And also none of that Balkan shitstorm since the French and Brits weren't as adamant to partition the Austrian Empire.

Even without going this far, a prolonged conflict would have led to immense unrest in the German Empire, who was far less unified than it's opponents, and the secession of the southern and central states, Saxony, Meckleburg... Especially if the enemy would set foot on German territory.

As a consequence, the tonnage of British ships lost fell by almost half from the second quarter (its peak) to the fourth quarter of 1917 and further in 1918. Thus, US entry into the war almost immediately eliminated the possibility of Germany defeating Britain through its own, U-boat blockade.

That's a correlation. Britain was slow to undertake proper measures to deal with U-Boats raiding. By the end of 1917 they had the convoy system reestablished, perfected anti U-Boats tactics, by 1918 they had planes spying the waters. The American fleet was not remotely comparable to the Great Fleet, nor was it very experienced. Not sure if they even saw action aside from confusing tortoises with torpedoes. They did tip the balance just enough so that Germany wouldn't even think about trying a desperate U-Boat or Battleship offensive and as such helped some crucial convoys reach the front

 

[Makabb]

64 player livestream on E3

 

[Destroid]

I really can't stand the way BF abuses teal orange contrast these days.

 

[Valestein]

64 player livestream on E3

What rifle is the German wielding? Looks like a Mondragon rifle but I'm not sure.

 

[Average Manatee]

This is genius.

Now we can seal the deal and make the historical record show that America is solely responsible for winning WW1. Any Euros that try to argue against this are racist white supremacists trying to erase the black man's part of history. And also probably nazis.

Hopefully the next Battlefield can fix the unfortunate inaccuracy where the European war in Vietnam is mistakenly attributed to the USA, because as we all know America had nothing to do with it and said it was foolhardy from the start.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Coming soon, Battlefield: Fourth French Republic, showcasing the most exciting French campaigns of the 1950s, from Indochina in '54 to Suez in '56 to Algeria in '58. Change history and prevent the Fourth Republic from toppling!

 

[Sranchammer]

Just another WW2 game

 

[J_C]

This is genius.

Now we can seal the deal and make the historical record show that America is solely responsible for winning WW1. Any Euros that try to argue against this are racist white supremacists trying to erase the black man's part of history. And also probably nazis.

Hopefully the next Battlefield can fix the unfortunate inaccuracy where the European war in Vietnam is mistakenly attributed to the USA, because as we all know America had nothing to do with it and said it was foolhardy from the start.

Yeah because everyone learns history by playing BF.

 

[Morgoth]

I, for one, am looking forward to the game E3 Livestream.

 

[Infinitron]

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefield-1-ea-was-concerned-kids-didnt-know-ww1/1100-6440385/

Battlefield 1: EA Was Concerned Kids Didn't Know WW1 Even Happened
There was "some debate" internally about Battlefield 1's World War 1 setting.


Following last month's news that EA Studios boss Patrick Soderlund initially rejected DICE's pitch for Battlefield 1, EA CFO Blake Jorgensen said today that there were concerns the company's younger audience didn't even know World War 1 happened.

Speaking at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch 2016 Global Technology Conference, Jorgensen said there was "some debate" inside of EA about Battlefield 1's setting.



"World War 1, we were worried that many of the younger consumers out there didn't know that there was a World War 2 or Vietnam, so World War 1..." he said.

One of the reasons why Soderlund originally rejected DICE's Battlefield 1 pitch was because he thought trench warfare couldn't be fun. But World War 1 offered much more than that, and once developers presented these ideas to EA, the project got the green light.

"I think what people don't understand about World War 1 is the technology shift that went on during the war," Jorgensen said. "People started the war on horseback and ended the war with airplanes and tanks and battleships and submarines. And that's a huge opportunity for us to be able to do a video game around."

Jorgensen also mentioned that there is a huge geographic opportunity for Battlefield 1's content, since World War 1 took place across all of Europe and northern Africa.

It appears people are indeed interested in a World War 1 Battlefield game. The game's announcement trailer is now the most-liked trailer for anything on YouTube. Jorgensen said this speaks to the "excitement" that exists around the game, even if it might not necessarily be indicative of future sales.