Battlefield 1 Opinions

Because it's a ww1 game and most of the time people spent in trenches, not running around.

Muh It's the current year

And... so... what? That pretty much applies for virtually every other war. Except maybe sometimes you're sitting in a truck, at a base, in a house, on a ship, in a forest...

In WW2 people also did not spend most of the time running around. BF1 can have loads of valid criticism laid against it but this isn't it.

>ordinary men who didn't really know what they were fighting for.
get the fuck outta here

I'm going to avoid Battlefield 1 and just stick with Battlefield 4. It upsets my autism too much since every is just fucking running around with MP-18's and people can use fucking syringes to instantly kill people. Also I don't think I'll like the game itself. I'm use to BF3 and BF4 with helicopters, assualt rifles and all the other good 21st century war stuff. Just seems too bland.

Most people are completely retarded about history most of the time. Battlefield 1 won't help a damn.

Are you talking in combat situations or more generally, because even on the western front British soldiers at the very least spent only about half of their time in the frontline, support, and reserve trenches, and about half of their time in camps behind the front.

>The Great War was a horrific war fought between countries by ordinary men who didn't really know what they were fighting for.
Fucking post-modernist scum get off my fucking board

he's talking out of his ass
people go "ww1 = trench warfare = two sets of guys sitting in a hole firing at each other 24/7/365 and sometimes climbing out and dying en masse P.S. also mud xDDDD"

All the ordinary men knew what they where fighting for. Or at least they had an idea. The Germans assumed they where defending Austria from Russo-french aggression. The Austrians assumed they where fighting a rebellion in Serbia. The Russians assumed they where defending other Slavs from austro-german aggression. The French assumed they where fighting In the defence of Russia against German aggression and for Alsace-Lothringen. Belgians where fighting purely in defence against Germans and Britain was fighting for the defence of Belgium against the Germans.

>The French assumed they where fighting In the defence of Russia against German aggression and for Alsace-Lothringen
I have this nagging feeling that there might have been an even more immediate reason and threat present in the minds of the French soldiers during the war...

I'm not sure they'll be that influenced toward believing it was the fighting style, I mean everyone knows about trench warfare anyway

I'm more worried about the "factions" aspect
I wouldnt be suprized if a lot kids end up believing that African-Americans and Bedouins did more than France and Russia

>The French assumed they where fighting In the defence of Russia against German aggression and for Alsace-Lothringen.

The French fought because Germany declared war on France and invaded
Same goes for the Russians

The main singleplayer protagonist is a member of the Harlem Hellfighters, you ass.

Seeing as they openly stated that they're making a historically inaccurate game, re-imagining the war for a modern audience, (hence the abundance of tech and weapons me that were absurdly rare or completely unused in the real war) there really wasn't a reason why women couldn't be in the game. Once you've betrayed your historical setting as badly as DICE has, 'muh realism' isn't a valid argument.

There is absolutely nothing with entertainment and media that might potentially get someone interested in a time period they don't know too much about. Now l'm not saying that's what video games are trying to do, but that can sometimes be a pretty cool byproduct.

Besides, the people that consider shit they see in video games as "knowledge" aren't very likely to dwell on that particular topic or have deep and meaningful discussions about it.

several things are probably going to happen

1. WW1 will, in the minds of a younger generation,. shift in viewpoint from "dying of infection after standing in knee deep water in a trench in january for a month" to "lots of combat".

2. People may start to think that minorities (and women) played more of a combat role in WW1 than they did, and this may lead to """""research"""""" that confirms them.

3. Sweden will continue its slow dive into madness

4. France will continue to be buried under a mountain of normies shrieking "HAHA SURRENDURRR HAHAH HEEE HEE" since dice/EA is apparently unwilling to even portray them in arguably their greatest and costliest stand

5.we'll probably see more shitty indie films about ww1, maybe even some fashion too.

1. You're implying the younger generation knows a whole lot about World War I. This is just a personal anecdote without a whole lot of value to it, but l knew very little about the true horrors of the war until l took at interest in it well after high school. We were taught that it was "prettt bad, but that's war for ya!"

2. Not sure on that one. If l remember right, Call of Duty had quite a few female somdiers on the Eastern Front. I'd be okay with them showing off ninority groups thst actually did play a part in the war, but l hope they don't shoehorn in anything more than that.

4. You'll never change that m8. That's what Americans are like.

Doesn't matter whether there were a couple black fighters, WW1 is European history with probably 90%+ white men in the war. It's like the whitest thing to ever happen.

>2. People may start to think that minorities (and women) played more of a combat role in WW1 than they did, and this may lead to """""research"""""" that confirms them.
Well sure, retards in primary school thought that scarabs lived for thousands of years and ate people. There will no doubt be quite a few (enough for an impressive looking collage at least) completely irrelevant hoteps on twitter and with blogs and youtube channels that believe this. In the scheme of things they will be a tiny minority though. The real impact on you or I will be that these fringe lunatics will be spammed here for the several times daily 'point and laugh at the niggers' KANGZ threads. Inevitably though some /pol/tards will get high on their own supply and think there's some existential threat to historiography.

there were more theatres than the western front f a m

Dont forget all the people who already went full sperg and I mean FULL SPERG over Italy's addition to the game. Like it gets so pathetic that you have australians claiming they have more right to be in the game than italy because they did a single attempted landing in the ottoman empire.
Also what do you guess there will be NO mention of the ottoman empire? Best thing they'll do is call it Turkey and say "yeah i guess they're fighting a bit over there in greece lul".
Also let's not forget the tons of america self-glorifications that is quota in every BF game. Like they did anything in WW1.

So you're saying they shouldn't put the protagonist of the game on the cover?

>they have more right to be in the game than italy because they did a single attempted landing in the ottoman empire.
The Middle Eastern theatre is being included in which Australian troops took part, unlike in Verdun they do have good grounds for the inclusion of Australian troops.
>Also what do you guess there will be NO mention of the ottoman empire?
I doubt there would be no mention, even if they don't have models at launch the Arab Revolt is being covered.
>Also let's not forget the tons of america self-glorifications that is quota in every BF game. Like they did anything in WW1.
Dice are Swedish.

Im worried as we haven't actually seen a trench map yet...

It will be total crap if all the conquest maps are just run and gun smgs fests.

It's the amount of niggers they'll believe was there that ticks me off.

Just play Verdun, there's this recurring bug with the servers where it will occasionally keep replaying the Flanders map over and over again.

True what you say about the eastern front, haven't read much on BF1 just yet.
Still, the fact that DICCE are swedish is irrelevant: they do some extreme pandering to american market, which is understandable because no fps sells if it isn''t anglocentric and fully committed in sucking USA dick, but no excusable, expecially seeing as american contribution to WW1 WAS, by all means, neglectible to the outcome of the wars. All the belligerents were exhausted by 1917, and a white peace was already on the talkings.

>Also what do you guess there will be NO mention of the ottoman empire? Best thing they'll do is call it Turkey and say "yeah i guess they're fighting a bit over there in greece lul".

The new footage they released at Gamescom focused on the Sinai-Palestinian Theater. The Ottomans were in full glory fighting the British.

>they've confirmed that there will be Push maps like Metro
They're saving the trenches for the map modes that they'll work best in.

I couldn't give a shit if little shaka-bobby can use a black skin considering all of the other inaccuracies largely made as concessions to the contemporary Battlefield playstyle, or even just bullshit for grand set pieces for maps. Frankly I couldn't give a shit if female skins were included, Battlefield 1 isn't a WWI game, it's a 2010s Battlefield game with WWI trappings.

And thanks to WW2 shooters, a lot of people think that the SS was Germany's primary combat arm in WW2. Doesn't really affect anything worth a damn.

Most people today think it was fought entirely in trenches gassing and shelling eachother when not marching directly into machine gun fire.

It can only get less simplified with the game.

Remember that most ww1 FPS threads to ever grace this site were filled with people claiming ww1 didn't have enough action to pad out a game.

Let's just have everyone stop posting all together since we can just refer to the archives right guys?

Compare the historical outcome of World War One after the Americans joining to a white peace and then delete the line in your post which says that the Americans were neglectible to the outcome of the war.

>All the belligerents were exhausted by 1917, and a white peace was already on the talkings.
Germany was the one exhausted. A prolonged conflict favored the allies, and they knew that, even if it would have taken longer without American reserves. Hell, the turnip winter was 16-17 already. No chance of a white peace at that point.

This is just wrong. By 1916, all powers were at zero sum. They had expended too much manpower and too many resources for the war to end in a white peace.

By 1917, none of the main Western powers were exhausted. France was probably the the weakest with mutinies in the Spring. However, Britain had an army adapting well to this new way of war as well as considerable manpower in reserve. The situation for Germany wasn't that bad either. They had shortened their front in the west with a tactical withdrawal to the Hindenburg line and looked were smashing the Russians in the east.

back to >>/pol/ you fucking racists

Britain and France were done for too. It was the addition of a million plus fresh, well equipped American soldiers that finished the war off.

t. /pol/

Everyone knows blacks did the majority of fighting on the western front. Are you some kind of trump bigot?

Thank you DICE sweden for letting us know the true history of the great nubian world war which was 99,9% fought by nubian heroes and not any whites whatsoever

its literally cultural marxist propaganda. Just look at that image, its a guy wearing a sniper mask, out dated chest armor, and using some hand held machine gun because "it looks cool"

DICE isnt having african soldiers because of YES, they have them so "African" Americans can pretend they are even related to the africans that fought for the germans

I know you're just being sarcastic. But reading this hurt my soul.

>But reading this hurt my soul.
don't be so fucking melodramatic

This. Everyone needs to know how the Harlem Hellfighters were literally the best soldiers of the war and won it single handledly, despite racism

they were given the name "Harlem Hellfighters" by their german opponents to! Because even the evil racist germans respected them so much

>Britain and France were done for too.
But they weren't - nowhere near the extent of Germany. The Germans were starved for... for everything, you name it, they didn't have it. From food to manpower to war materiel. The Germans enjoyed a slight manpower advantage on the ground for a while after knocking Russia out - but they didn't have anything else, no reserves to tap into, while the allies still had their colonial backup both economic and in terms of manpower.

You're disingeniously forgetting about public opinions: the people wanted peace. I can only really speak for Italy, but I'd ve extremely hard pressed to believe the public opinion in the UK or in france didnt want peace. Also you're overextimating the contributions of the colonies; it's not that the entente had infinite manpower to send to the front.

Maybe Battlefield 1 will be a great game it however won't be a great WW1 game simply because it's fictionalized

>True what you say about the eastern front, haven't read much on BF1 just yet.
Not the eastern front, the Middle-Eastern theatre.
>Still, the fact that DICCE are swedish is irrelevant
Yes it is, you said "americal self-glorifications".

my primary problem with battlefield 1 is that it lacks mod tools..

next to that I'm mostly indifferent to the race/gender thing, especially in multiplayer.. the bigger issue is a lack of faction-locked/restricted weapons, in addition to DICE attempting hamfistedly to twist ww1 to fit into roughly the same mold (though slightly modified or "improved") of gameplay/class as the previous Battlefield games as far back as Battlefield bad company 2, when this new setting does not fit.

a thing to highlight this is the inclusion of the "AT rocket gun" for the assault kit.. it's not really a rocket-launcher, its a low-velocity 40mm cannon, that was only used by the british, and doesn't really have much of an equivalent for the central powers. They only added it because they thought they "needed" (they don't) a "bazooka", but I think it's a stupid idea, though I like that it requires deployment before you can fire..

>You're disingeniously forgetting about public opinions: the people wanted peace.
The peoples of France and Belgium wanted the invaders kicked out of their country first and foremost.
>Also you're overextimating the contributions of the colonies; it's not that the entente had infinite manpower to send to the front.
You don't seem to get it. No one is saying they had unlimited manpower. But they still had some. The Germans basically didn't. Which goes for, well, like I said, pretty much everything from metals (Germans were MELTING BENCHES AND BELLS!) to foodstuffs. The allies also did not have a rotten homefront that would actually lead to revolutions.

feminists whine:
>DICE: we won't add women because it's not historical for women to be fighting on the front in 1918.
history neckbeards whine:
>DICE:our game isn't trying to be historically accurate.

>the people of france and belgium
Well apparently not the soldiers, seeing the long series of mutinies and defections the french armies suffered in 1917. The army was undisputably on the verge of collapse, still good at defending but in no condition to attack->stalemate.
Also let's not forget the british army getting slaughteted at the Somme, that had an ectremely heavy repercussion on the public opinion.
Speaking of manpower, the casualties at the end of the war are 4 millions for the Central Empires and 6 millions for the Entente, that is 50% more. To say they had more manpower is correct, but they also spent more in proportion.

WIR

It's almost like historical accuracy does not boil down (only) to the preoccupations of SJW like women quotas.

in all honesty I think DICE might as well just allow female player-character models (assuming they're having character customization already).

the casuals on reddit will rage, GG will throw a temper tantrum, when they were perfectly alright/indffierent with every other historical inaccuracy. it will be a perfect revenge.

>they're making us play black people! Fucking cultural marxism!

If you think about it for even a fucking moment your own /pol/ logic would show you how dumb that is. This shit is literally just model customization, and won't be forced on anyone. You know how I know that? Right now, only one of the German classes is black: Recon. The sniper. You think a libcuck cultural marxist would *force* people to play a sniper if they wanted to be black? Fuck no, they'd make it so any class could be black or be a poo-in-loo or whatever. Ergo, even if they are swedish liberal numale cucks, they're going to add the option to be black to every class...which means the same option will be there to be white and therefore means NOBODY IS USING THE FUCKING MULTIPLAYER TO PUSH A RETARDEDASS MESSAGE. This is ON TOP of the disabled character model customization options already in the fucking alpha that everyone willingly ignores.

Jesus Christ use your heads for a moment.

>this lame ass justification for black washing european history in the name of forced multiculturalism

They are putting black people into a setting where they werent any historically to the point where anyone with any histrical sense would laugh at it. And dont try to go with this "you /pol/ tards bitch about everything!" excuse

They made games set around modern war with black characters, and no one complained because it made sense and fit the setting

They made Vietnam War games that also had blacks and no one complained because it made sense to that setting

But now they are making a WW1 game and forcing this idea and its perfectly normal for anyone who isnt some ultra SJW to point out its inaccuracy. Hell, I would be fine if they had some levels in Africa or something, but all these German troops on the western front being black is obviously bullshit liberal pandering bullshit, as evident that the guy whos making the game said as much himself. So yeah, Im fully aware of it being a choice, but its still bullshit. Hows about a game about Chinese history where you are given the choice of playing as a Mexican guy? With a Mexican guy on the cover and all the advertisements obnoxiously showing mexicans? You would laugh it off as retarded bullshit.

You also cant just separate this move from the current climate of identity politics in the west.

Also, this is AAA bullshit and will be a buggy mess with Day one DLC. Fuck this game on every level

It's just aother AAA game, published by EA nonetheless. It's made to sell, so don't expect it to be historically acurate.
Just ignore it and stick to the books, They'll move on to to another shitty sequel soon enough.

>all these German troops on the western front being black

Literally. Only. Recon. If you're seeing a shitload of black Germans in the game it's because the German team is being retarded and playing all-sniper. As soon as they turn on model customization, all those guys will go away, at which point we'll be back to it being regular Battlefield historical inaccuracy. Like, you know, StG-44s being given out like candy or the Tiger being the only tank the Wehrmacht used. Battlefield has *always* bent in favor of gameplay over accuracy in multiplayer.

The dude on the cover isn't even German anyways. He's either an American or a Bong based on the uniform. More than likely an American.

One of the good things about being a kiwi is that the whole ANZAC thing is still really important here, so we get taught about ww1 all through school from primary on

>Battlefield has *always* bent in favor of gameplay over accuracy in multiplayer.

this isnt a gameplay thing though, its a purely cosmetic choice to make your character a certain race, all in the name of racial diversity. there werent any black people fighting for germany in WW1.

And the guy on the cover is a black american, which again, is over stating their importance in the name of diversity. The lead designer of the game said himself that "Thats [diversity] been a key goal" and people are calling him and the game out on it.

I know for a fact that most people would rip this game to shreds if it had an American doughboy on the cover with an american flag for over stating the importance of America in the war (especially when France isnt even in the fucking game and has to be downloaded as an extra)

But since its a black dude, you are some crazy /pol/tard for noticing it and pointing out its sillyness.

I'm actually kind of proud of you guys for not taking faggot OP's thinly veiled /pol/ bait thread.

On any other board this would have turned into a whine-fest about niggers and jews by now.

I mean, the proportion of bolt action rifles to other small arms was almost the same in ww2 as it was in ww1, but that sure as shit isnt the impression the average ww2 shooter gives you

What does any of this have to do with history and humanities, you stupid fuck?

>going with the "off topic" excuse to just my post because you dont have any real counter argument to it

not an argument

Cringe.

>there werent any black people fighting for germany *IN EUROPE* in WW1.

my mistake. There were black troops fighting for Germany in Africa

>implying that isn't a laudable goal

In the west, people thing all of WW1 was just France and Britain versus Germany, that no other front but the Western Front existed. The fact that not only are they acknowledging that the Ottomans existed and took part, but letting the players actually PLAY as them is an incredible boost to history. Maybe now people will actually start learning about the Middle Eastern Theater. Or the Italian Theater.

As for France, I've got suspicions about them. They've been using "classic Battlefield gameplay" a lot in their promotional material, which is making me think that they might be bringing back expansion packs. If the France DLC is going to bring an entirely new campaign with it, I think the price and wait would be justified. But we need more details on it before I totally give that a pass.

So what's the deal? With all the other historical inaccuracies present in multiplayer, just pretend that the Kaiser saw the war coming and got some of his Askari divisions in Germany before it broke out and the blockade was proclaimed. It makes as much historical sense as a British soldier armed with an MP-18 shooting at a German soldier manning a Lewis Gun before being blown away by another German wielding a Winchester M1895.

>there werent any black people fighting for germany in WW1.

>Winchester M1895
Speaking of that, that got my milsperg boner rock hard. Fucking nobody knows that the Winchester 1895 saw service in WW1 with the Tsar.

>>implying that isn't a laudable goal

> The fact that not only are they acknowledging that the Ottomans existed and took part, but letting the players actually PLAY as them is an incredible boost to history. Maybe now people will actually start learning about the Middle Eastern Theater. Or the Italian Theater.

this is moving the goalpost. Im clearly talking about the over use of black people in the game for the stated goal of diversity. I never said anything bad about showing the middle eastern theater of the war. And to my knowledge, the Italian Front isnt in the game. And again, this isnt cheating with the history by giving players weapons in the name of improving gameplay over accuracy. I totally understand that its a videogame and its first concern in good gameplay.

It is, as stated by Daniel Berlin, in the name of promoting diversity. Theres no argument over if theres multicultural propaganda in the game, the argument is if you agree with this decision or not. A lot of people, including me, noticed this and are pointing it out as bullshit in the name of a bullshit goal.

>"We want to show diversity in the game. That’s been a key goal."-Daniel Berlin

venturebeat.com/2016/05/06/ea-dices-lead-designer-answers-our-questions-about-battlefield-1/

see

>Hey Veeky Forums I rarely post but I thought that this would be interesting to ask.

Some advice for a new poster: no one gives a shit. Just get into the post.

>this game is just a little bit disrespectful.

Look, violence is a terrible thing, but most games include it. Is that really disrespectful? It's just depicting life. If you think that is disrespectful just don't play games.

Let's not leave out the whole context here.

>GamesBeat: You’re talking about revealing sides of the war that people don’t necessarily know about. A lot of people have made note of the fact that your cover character is black, even though obviously black people fought in World War One. For you guys, was that a conscious decision, an opportunity to show that there was more breadth to this war than people know about?

>Berlin: That’s the thing. People don’t know that this was the case. We want to show diversity in the game. That’s been a key goal. You can see in the trailer that there’s a Bedouin woman warrior on a horse. She’s a playable character in the single-player campaign.

Important part of the quote:
>"That’s the thing. People don’t know that this was the case."

That is an entirely valid statement. Acknowledging that the World War actually had people from the whole world fighting in it isn't "bullshit". Like it or not, the Americans DID send black regiments to Europe and one of those DID get highly decorated by even the standards of the time, and nobody fucking knows about them.

And in regards to what this whole argument is about, Germany DID have African colonies and they DID have native colonial troops, so letting some random fuck pretend to play one in the multiplayer that's about as historically accurate as The Guns of Navarone is really not much of a big deal.

>implying the US army and marine corps were equipped mostly with the M1903

>That is an entirely valid statement.

No it isnt because thats not what hes doing. You even somewhat acknowledge this yourself here
>So what's the deal? With all the other historical inaccuracies present in multiplayer, just pretend that the Kaiser saw the war coming and got some of his Askari divisions in Germany before it broke out and the blockade was proclaimed.

>pretend

You already admitted that the game does include made up bullshit that did NOT happen in reality. If Berlins goal was to show overlooked aspects of the war, especially about ones involving brown people, then he wouldnt need to make of bullshit like this. German only had black people fighting for them in Africa, and the game has no african levels. I would actually think it would be cool to play a level with black german colonial troops fighting back British Indian troops. This is clearly going against real history, to the point of just making up bullshit, in order to promote his liberal goal of promoting diversity.

Again, this is bullshit to anyone who expects some sort of historical accuracy in the game, or anyone that doesnt subscribe to Berlins SJW political views.

And I never said black people didnt fight in the war, Im saying that the game is over stating their importance in the war in the name of a political goal, which it is since the guy whos making the game admitted to this himself. You entered the thread laughing off all claims of this as just "/pol/ logic", as if their was no valid argument from people speaking out against it, and now you are just trying to defend his choices.

Couldn't give less of a shit about the races of the soldiers. What really pisses me off is are the soldiers' load out and weapons/weapon attachments that shouldn't be there.

>Again, this is bullshit to anyone who expects some sort of historical accuracy in the game
>This is clearly going against real history, to the point of just making up bullshit, in order to promote his liberal goal of promoting diversity.

This is what I've been trying to get through to you: IT'S BATTLEFIELD. THE MULTIPLAYER HAS *ALWAYS* BEEN HISTORICALLY INACCURATE. Even from the very fucking first game of the series it's been that way, when you had the Afrika Korps using StG-44s as their main infantry weapon and the Desert Rats fighting them with BARs. All of the realism in Battlefield's multiplayer can be boiled down to
>Did it exist at any point of the game's timeframe: Y/N
>if Y allow all players to use it if they want

And that's all people have been fighting over ever since the fucking alpha started. It's a customization option to use in multiplayer, nothing more. It's not "overstating their importance in the war" if their only statement is their inclusion.

Same for the Harlem Hellfighters, if they're even in the campaign and not just a preorder gun skin pack. Including them isn't "overstating their importance" any more than any game focusing on elite soldiers like paratroopers is overstating *their* importance. Storytellers gravitate towards interesting shit.

If they didn't want to use trench warfare, why not center a game on the Eastern front. Russia, Germany, and the smaller powers maybe. The Eastern front was far more dynamic and wouldn't be hamfisted steampunk like this game was.

Maybe the campaign could follow a Russian officer and foreshadow the Revolution? That would make a much more interesting game imo.

It will be even worse than what COD did to the popular conception of the Eastern Front.

If you want something realistic play Verdun.

>Well apparently not the soldiers, seeing the long series of mutinies and defections the french armies suffered in 1917. The army was undisputably on the verge of collapse, still good at defending but in no condition to attack->stalemate.

Fuck off with this myth. Very few divisions were seriously affected by mutinies, less than 4000 men were tried, less than 700 death sentences were given, and less than 50 were actually carried out. Out of millions of mobilised men. This "long series" lasted a month, and was easily resolved once Pétain took over.

We're talking about some soldiers on strike, at most not leaving their post but refusing to attack until their demands are heard, fed up about living condition in the trenches, demoralised by an offensive that they thought could have waited until the Americans arrived. Not an army "undisputably" on the verge of collapse. And certainly not an imminent French version of the February Révolution, like I've heard some leftists argue.

And I've literally never heard of defections from the French side to the Germans. I've heard about Alsatian and Lorrain soldiers going over to the French side, and even then only isolated incidents inflated by French propaganda.

>Even from the very fucking first game of the series it's been that way, when you had the Afrika Korps using StG-44s as their main infantry weapon and the Desert Rats fighting them with BARs. All of the realism in Battlefield's multiplayer can be boiled down to

Once again, this isnt a change in weapons in the name of gameplay. This is, as stated by the guy who made the game, a change in character models in the name of promoting diversity, to the point of making up scenarios to include more black people. You keep trying to move away from this because even you realize its happening.

>Once again, this isnt a change in weapons in the name of gameplay.
It is just as inaccurate.

>This is, as stated by the guy who made the game, a change in character models in the name of promoting diversity, to the point of making up scenarios to include more black people.
That is complete horseshit and you know it. Merely including them isn't doing any of what you just said, especially when the "stated goal" was to include them in the game because nobody knew they actually fought in the war. Nobody is going to be forced to play them, and they're not making up scenarios to include them any more than they're making up scenarios to give the Italians the MP-18. You are literally accusing them of historical revisionism over a goddamn optional multiplayer skin.

>was to include them in the game because nobody knew they actually fought in the war.

They DID NOT fight in the war though. Remember, even you said "Just pretend"

even you know they are making up bullshit and not just showing overlooked aspects of the war. You trying to deliberately not acknowledge this, and trying to equate them forcing diversity into the game for political reason to having characters use certain weapons in the name of gameplay is laughable.

What this boils down to is that you agree with his political goals, but are trying to do with very obvious dog whistle thing. It isnt working and its noticeable to everyone. Not only that, but they have a perfectly reasonable argument when they bitch about the forced diversity in the game, which is the goal of the game as stated by the guy who made it

The vast majority of combatants in ww1 were not american

ww2*

>They DID NOT fight in the war though. Remember, even you said "Just pretend"
They fought in Africa, and that's good enough. If you can suspend disbelief for a shitload of A7Vs running around, you can suspend it for a randomass skin that you can barely see as you shoot at it.

Also, that quote was almost certainly talking about the Harlem Hellfighter who is on the cover of the game. And they *did* fight in the war.

>forced diversity
>forced diversity
>forced diversity
Nobody is forcing you to play as a black guy. Is their mere presence oppressing you or some shit?

but 10000 russians with moist nuggets are less significant than an aircraft carrier

What?

There were at least a million african combatants in the war, of whom several hundred thousand were present in europe