Battlefield 1 - set in World War 1

[Daedalos]

I found the hardcore servers quite populated. In fact, with the dedicated servers n all that shit, lots of clan and communities were setting up servers for hardcore players with specific rulesets.

Really enjoyed myself with those servers, and I never had a problem finding 64 player full servers with lots of action.

 

[Spectacle]

You mean hitting objects that stand still? He's playing vs nubs. Also, normal mode is for noobs. Roll on hardcore mode with NO visual indicators or anything.

Always hated normal mode on BF3 and BF4. Enemies take 20 million shots to kill, and there are shitty markers everywhere giving away your position.

I hope there's a hardcore mode in BF1, too. Probably not.

Hardcore is widely regarded as the noob mode in Battlefield. The lack of visual indicators and minimap makes it easier for weak players who can't win a head on firefight to sneak around and shoot people in the back, and the reduced number of bullets to kill means that lucky hits have more impact relative to aimed fire.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Inspiring to hear German-voiced player sounds

Doesn't open
I've mentioned this before, I really appreciate listening game characters speak in native languages, real or constructed.

BTW guys, bad news for all of you, BF1 won't be progressive:

Spoiler

Battlefield 1 Won’t Have Female Soldiers in Multiplayer Because Of This Outrageous Reason

With Battlefield 1 producing groundbreaking features and currently living up to its hype, there is still one thing that each Battlefield game has been lacking: female soldiers in multiplayer. And it doesn’t look like EA’s next installment will entertain that idea, either.





With popular shooters such as Call of Duty and Overwatch including female characters in their multiplayer formats, it’s become quite the norm to play as a woman with guns blazing. However, the Battlefield franchise has never provided this feature, and Battlefield 1 will be no different. (Note that this is regards to online multiplayer only, because there is a playable female character in the story mode.)

What’s really entertaining is the reason behind this decision. Originally, females were going to be integrated as playable multiplayer characters, but then the idea was scrapped due to boys not finding it believable. Former DICE coder, Amanda Coget, took to Twitter in order to discuss how the conversation went down.

via Twitter (@LiaSae)

via Twitter (@LiaSae)

via Twitter (@LiaSae)

Even though female soldiers in WWI was not a common thing, it happened. And even though Battlefield is more realistic with its play style in comparison to other shooters, it’s still a video game.

There is a ton of room for interpretation when it comes to developing battles and fighting because despite how realistic a game is, it’s still pretty fictional. (I mean come on, respawning multiple times in a match is realistic, but playing as a female soldier isn’t?)

Image: Battlefield 1

I’ve never classified myself as a feminist by any means, but this is ridiculous. It’s not upsetting that Battlefield 1 won’t have female soldiers (in multiplayer), but it’s highly offensive that they are catering to boys that wouldn’t find the idea believable. The concept is understandable, but the reasoning is not.

This isn’t the first time the game attempted to accommodate to the less informed consumer.EA originally ditched the idea of a World War I setting because they were concerned that kids didn’t know that it actually happened.

UPDATE 6/15/16: I just want to clear the air regarding the reasoning behind this article. It is not to start a debate about social equality, women’s rights, or anything of that nature. I don’t care if I have to play a game as a man, woman, alien, worm, or even a piece of chewed up bubble gum; I just like to play video games, regardless of the characters available. This article was written to simply state that it appeared that Battlefield 1 initially wanted to include women in their multiplayer for the first time, but ditched the idea later in order to appease their supposed target audience, which happens to be younger boys.

http://fraghero.com/battlefield-1-w...ultiplayer-because-of-this-outrageous-reason/

And especially, check out the author:

Spoiler

Rice
I play video games & I don't make sandwiches.

You know you're dealing with a real gamer girl when she informs you she doesn't make sandwitches but still shows cleavage on her profile photo, because she knows her face is butt-ugly.

Anyway, I'm watching the videos and I still can't make out anything that marks this BF as a "BF game set in WW1". I think it's a waste they didn't just brand it as a WW2 game, if the only difference from modern/futuristic games will be that the majority of weapons will use iron sights for aiming. And I would really like to play an actual WW1 FPS game. A pity.[/quote]

 

[Irenaeus]

Nice cleavage.

 

[Temesis]

Looks like typical Battlefield game with great production values and movie realism. Everything is slick & cool, but the videos remind me more of Indiana Jones than WWI.

Buttoned sleeves are kinda kinky though.

 

[Higher Animal]

Absolutely, by making Germany panick and launch a retarded last-ditch offensive that got what was left of their good troops mauled, and also by making impossible the mere idea that Germany could negotiate a favourable peace.

And they would have had no choice but to negotiate said peace because even before that, before US military intervention, they had already lost. We tend to overestimate how good their situation was because Russia had just left the war and the Western front was geographically outside of Germany, but by 1918, Germany was dead. There was no hypothesis in which they could win against France and the UK.

This is an inaccurate statement. Germany had the manpower to drive through every Anglo Saxon and Frenchmen left on the continent. Germany's strategic options became limited to zerg rush when the US provided a fresh stock of manpower. I think a neutral US results in the destruction of the British Empire, and complete submission of the continent to a unified Germany. Many historians think the same way.

 

[Beastro]

Absolutely, by making Germany panick and launch a retarded last-ditch offensive that got what was left of their good troops mauled, and also by making impossible the mere idea that Germany could negotiate a favourable peace.

And they would have had no choice but to negotiate said peace because even before that, before US military intervention, they had already lost. We tend to overestimate how good their situation was because Russia had just left the war and the Western front was geographically outside of Germany, but by 1918, Germany was dead. There was no hypothesis in which they could win against France and the UK.

This is an inaccurate statement. Germany had the manpower to drive through every Anglo Saxon and Frenchmen left on the continent. Germany's strategic options became limited to zerg rush when the US provided a fresh stock of manpower. I think a neutral US results in the destruction of the British Empire, and complete submission of the continent to a unified Germany. Many historians think the same way.

Germany was running out of everything because what ultimately won the war was choking them to death, the North Sea blockade.

Destruction of the Empire how? They couldn't touch the British Isles, the High Seas fleet couldn't operate outside the North Sea due to their fuel range while ADSIC and other development were trashing the Uboat campaign.

All that'll happen, at best, is a stalemate and a peace where Germany dominates the Continent while Britain controls the overseas and works to get the US and Japan onboard to counter the new regional hegemon in Europe.

 

[Higher Animal]

Germany was running out of everything because what ultimately won the war was choking them to death, the North Sea blockade.

More recent studies also disagree on the severity of the blockade′s impact on the affected populations at the time of the revolution and the armistice. Some hold[9][10] that the blockade starved Germany and the Central Powers into defeat in 1918, but others maintain that while the German population did indeed go hungry as a result of the blockade, Germany′s rationing system kept all but a few from actually starving to death. German success against the Russians on the Eastern Front culminating in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk gave Germany access to the resources of Poland and other eastern territories, which did much to counter the effects of the blockade. The armistice on 11 November was forced by events on the Western Front rather than any actions of the civilian population. Also Germany's largest ally Austria-Hungary had already signed an armistice on 3 November 1918, exposing Germany to an invasion from the south.

Blockade or no, Germany had the ability to eradicate both Britain and France from the continent after 1916. What stopped that from happening was the influx of manpower and the promise of total annihilation that Wilson's interventionism portended.

 

[Beastro]

German success against the Russians on the Eastern Front culminating in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk gave Germany access to the resources of Poland and other eastern territories, which did much to counter the effects of the blockade.

Which led to them having to leave a large occupation force in the East that wound up denuding the forces needed to fight on the Western Front. They got greedy in the end and asked for too much told hold onto while they were still fighting to survive.

This is all to the way side given that they broke after Michel when the US was still playing a minor part in the war, all the more so given they were went in using the murderous tactics of 1914 ignoring the better advice of their allies.

but others maintain that while the German population did indeed go hungry as a result of the blockade, Germany′s rationing system kept all but a few from actually starving to death

You do realize a blockade does more than starve? One of the major areas it hit Germany at was their dependency on nitrate imports to produce explosives and something the Eastern Front couldn't provide since the majority of the worlds supply at the time came from Pacific islands.

With their excellent chemical industry they were able to produce some synthetic supplies, but not nearly enough to meet the wars demand.

 

[Higher Animal]

I don't think the blockade would've stopped Germany from reaching the Atlantic Ocean. The 1917 offensive showed how how little continental allies could withstand the full might of the German army, and this was a desperation play. The blockade wouldn't have been effective because Germans would be tearing through British and French lines, which is exactly what they did, instead of being mired in a stalemate.

You continually ignore how desperate the French and British armies in France were in 1917. The entire male population of that country could've been killed in two years of fighting.

 

[Beastro]

I don't think the blockade would've stopped Germany from reaching the Atlantic Ocean. The 1917 offensive showed how how little continental allies could withstand the full might of the German army, and this was a desperation play. The blockade wouldn't have been effective because Germans would be tearing through British and French lines, which is exactly what they did, instead of being mired in a stalemate.

Even if they did, it's a stalemate, as I said with regard to Britain since they completely lack the means of taking the war to Britain, especially due to the little problem about the High Seas Fleet - it was so specifically made to fight the RN in the North Sea it was useless outside of it. It could not use any possible victory is attained and is a testament to how poorly thought out the Riskflotte was.

You continually ignore how desperate the French and British armies in France were in 1917. The entire male population of that country could've been killed in two years of fighting.

And you ignore how much French had recovered since the dark days of their mutinies while Britain was never at a crisis stage and had done what others thought impossible for the age, gone on to field not only a fully equipped and competent navy but an army as well, an army which was the best trained and equipped one on earth. The much lauded stormtroopers the Germans used to throw their most experienced men away with doing what every British unit by that time was.

I think it's a fucking cop out which ignores both what the Western Entante had survived and accomplished in the final years of the war as well as the sacrifices of the Russians indirectly, to point at the Americans and say they won the war for the Entante when they still hadn't arrived in force.

 

[Higher Animal]

I don't think this conversation can be continued. I don't think anything you said about the western front is accurate, and the Brits/French would've been buried by the German army.

 

[DwarvenFood]

This thread has more realism than BF1 will ever have, not having female soldiers won't save them.

 

[Valestein]

Looks like the French will be "premium dlc", which is pretty fucking lame for one of major players of the war(and where the western front was).

http://www.dualshockers.com/2016/06/15/french-forces-will-be-premium-dlc-for-battlefield-1/

 

[J_C]

Austro-Hungarian Empire

And all is good in the world.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Looks like the French will be "premium dlc", which is pretty fucking lame for one of major players of the war(and where the western front was).

http://www.dualshockers.com/2016/06/15/french-forces-will-be-premium-dlc-for-battlefield-1/

So the base game will resemble WW2 even more :D

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Blockade or no, Germany had the ability to eradicate both Britain and France from the continent after 1916. What stopped that from happening was the influx of manpower and the promise of total annihilation that Wilson's interventionism portended.

There were fewer than 200,000 American troops in France by the end of 1917. It's one thing to argue that American troops were the determining factor in Germany's last-ditch offensive of 1918 by which time American reinforcements were arriving rapidly, and another to argue they were critical to the Western Front the previous year. Germany had focused on the Eastern Front in 1917 in an ultimately successful effort to knock Russia out of the war (which the German High Command thought would result in far more men and supplies becoming available for the western front in 1918 than actually occurred), without which they wouldn't have had any prospect of success the following year, regardless of American intervention.

With their excellent chemical industry they were able to produce some synthetic supplies, but not nearly enough to meet the wars demand.

Yes, Fritz Haber's invention of ammonia synthesis changed history. If Germany hadn't developed the capability to artificially create nitrates, they would have lost the war by early 1917.

 

[Sranchammer]

Better setting would have been Russian Civil War

 

[Higher Animal]

There were fewer than 200,000 American troops in France by the end of 1917. It's one thing to argue that American troops were the determining factor in Germany's last-ditch offensive of 1918 by which time American reinforcements were arriving rapidly, and another to argue they were critical to the Western Front the previous year.

German war strategy changed immediately after the US declared war. That entrance forced Germany into a wild offensive strategy which wouldn't have been prosecuted in the same manner had the US stayed neutral. While it is true the US gave about 177k casualties to the effort, it was the long-term realization of a total depravity in manpower that forced the surrender.

Without US intervention, Germany takes the continent.

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

German victory was effectively impossible the moment they lost momentum in France after the battle of the Marne. The Germans would have done better if they had continued to feed their men into the meat grinder for the final rush to Paris rather then allow the situation to develop into a static trench war which they had no hope of winning thanks to the British Blockade.

German victory by 1917 was impossible, even if by some miracle France capitulated and Europe was dominated by the Germans, the British Empire is effectively untouchable and quite capable of continuing the war until Germany is willing to negotiate. While the French were bled white by the war, the British only recently adopted limited conscription in 1916, and conscription in Ireland began in 1918 and never implemented. Canada and Australia likewise started conscription in 1917.

This is also ignoring the intact 2 million strong Indian Army which would be available to deploy anywhere in the world once the Ottomans inevitably capitulated

 

[sser]

WWI game where everyone is using semi-automatics and hip-fired machine-guns

Millions of Frenchmen died defending their homeland just to be turned into DLC ninety years later

 

[Excidium II]

Millions of Frenchmen died defending their homeland just to be turned into DLC ninety years later

~*premium*~ dlc tho

 

[Sranchammer]

There is nothing more repulsive to the historian than historicism

This is also ignoring the intact 2 million strong Indian Army which would be available to deploy anywhere in the world once the Ottomans inevitably capitulated

Is this a MEP alt?

 

[Endlösung]

Better setting would have been Russian Civil War

Do you want turret sections? Because

 

[Makabb]