Battlefield V ( November 20,2018 )

[RYAN]

You know, the second half of the sentence is equally important as the first half. They're presenting it as balancing authenticity with fun, when in reality, no such balancing is taking place. There is no authenticity. That's fine. They can do that. But they shouldn't pretend to




I wouldn't expect a complete 1:1 recreation of them, but I certainly want some semblance of realism in their portrayal and who wields them. An American soldiers for instance should not be wielding a German gun as standard. And it's not entirely true that this was not part of my initial complaints, I just chose not to go into depth with it, and instead simply said this...

"and just like BF1, doesn't make any attempts to be even remotely authentic regarding the historical period that it is supposed to take place in."

I figured this would be enough to make it clear that my concerns over authenticity extended well beyond the game featuring female soldiers. I expressed my concerns over lack of authenticity in BF1 in its respective thread (page 16). Reiterating the same problems I had with BF1, which are very much problems in BF5 too, seemed pointless. In short, the female soldier is simply an additional inaccuracy, further removing the game from the setting it claims to portray.




Fair point, however, I don't believe the focus on SJW's to be misplaced. When you portray history through the lens of todays world, rather than the reality of what was, then how can that be anything but political correctness? And where does it stop? Don't give me this nonsense of people wanting to play their own gender in a game where you cannot even see your own character during gameplay, and where the character is ultimately nothing by than an extension of then gun in your hand, rather than the other way around.

​

They were trained in self defense, sabotage and limited combat operations. They were not trained, at least not in general, to participate in full scale combat operations. The people they were training also did not conduct conventional war. The only notable exception here being the partisans in Yugoslavia, who, on numerous occasions, did fight in more conventional ways with various degrees of success.

Even when the SOE took part in major allied operations, such as Market Garden, their job was to act as a liaison between the allied forces and the resistance. They organized, and sometimes took part in sabotage and general subversion in enemy territory. They did not, or at least not ordinarily, fight side by side with soldiers in conventional battle. It simply wasn't their job.

Here's an example...

"SFHQ attached EDWARD to the airborne corps HQ to act as liaison with the local 134 population and to provide an additional communications for the airborne corps with England. In its principle mission as liaison between corps and SFHQ, EDWARD would coordinate the work of its sub-missions with their assigned divisions and act as an additional communications link for these sub missions to SFHQ"

Source: THE ROLE OF JEDBURGH TEAMS IN OPERATION MARKET GARDEN
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b149933.pdf

The same basic task holds true for the other Jedburgh teams participating in Market Garden. They did indeed engage Germans when necessary, but never in the direct head to head engagements that regular army units would.

That's all well and good, but I again have to ask. If the one and only thing that portrays the historical period that you've chosen for your game is the visible models for weapons and vehicles, then why bother with the period at all? Why not just make a fictional setting? If you make no effort to actually portray the period with any authenticity, then surely, choosing it is pointless?​

"The weapons and vehicles are the only thing that portrays the chosen setting". Who even claimed this?

For people to expect 100% authenticity in modern AAA games like BF is so nieve. That would be an impossible task and unnecessary.

For the majority of people Gameplay and fun factor is more important. I find history and especially the two world wars incredibly interesting. And to a small extent knowledgeable of the subject, I am also a big Battlefield fan who has played every game. I know the slight liberties that have been and will be taken in the future is to make the game more interesting and attractive to normal gamers, The people that need to buy the game for it to be a success. Not the minority of people who expect every aspect of the war to be represented correctly 100%. They never have or even strived to show 100% accuracy and authenticity to their settings and surroundings. Why people all of a suddenly expect this is unfathomable.

 

[Scaff]

Looks too scripted to be multiplayer IMO.

A trailer, that been scripted! It must be the first for the industry!

's

I'd say it might be co-op campaign, with XP system and squad respawns. And since we see the same characters (including the woman) on more official screenshots/images of the game, I suspect that they'll be the characters of the campaign.

Its got the multiplayer score-bar at the top of the screen!

The point is that whoever you're telling about 'female Russian tank crews' should also know this. Just a cite note.
Plus, I'm almost sure there were no tank crews consisting entirely of women. All stories about female tankers I read featured only one woman in a crew. In most cases they were commanders.

And the point is that it makes no difference.

Like we didn't know.
I don't mind them being included in the game. But, in the campaign, I would like them to be on the theaters where they did fight in reality.

And, before you ask me - yes, I also tend to get triggered about other non period/place correct things, like Tiger II tanks in Stalingrad in CoD: World at War campaign.

Its multiplayer, it's got the multiplayer score-bar across the top

Not really.
A dev said, 'fun over realism'. Fine. But what's fun in a woman with metal arm fighting on the frontline of what's said to be the Western Front of WW2?..

Sorry does the 'fun' have to be specific to you?

Look. Here is an example of a proper depiction of women in a WW2 game (if it needs gender diversity so much). A mission from Company of Heroes 2 (the very first minutes of the video).

CoH 2 has controversal story of the Soviet campaign, but at least they didn't mess up over here.
In the gameplay, women are also present as partisans, Soviet snipers and nurses. As it was often in the history.

It's multiplayer, its got the multiplayer score-bar across the top.

Then it's a good thing that I've never once claimed that women did not take part in fighting during the war. On the contrary, I've mentioned the fielding of women in the Soviet military and in partisans, and have also fully agreed that the SOE had women in their ranks. I've rightly mentioned that the SOE was not a conventional fighting unit and that they did not take part in conventional battles as frontline units. This is corroborated by history. I think I've been as clear as I possibly could be about being perfectly okay with and supporting the game featuring female combatants in scenarios where they have historical legitimacy.

I'm done with discussing the matter of the SOE with you as you seem unwilling to accept the simple fact that they were not a frontline unit formed with the purpose of conducting conventional battle.

No one said that the SOE were a front-line unit. However non-front line units do get involved in front-line combat.

Exactly. I assume you haven't played it, but the game is heavily inspired by WW2 and it shows throughout the game. Despite not visually representing WW2, the feel of the games setting, the story and the characters better represent WW2 than BF1 did WW1 and than BF5 will WW2. It's a comparison made to illustrate to you just how little DICE cares about portraying the setting they chose for their game. Additionally, I find it amusing how you, who claims that everyone is only focused on the woman in BF5, is immediately fixated on women being in Valkyria Chronicles. Or perhaps you just continue to insist that this is my only issue with BF5 in a continued attempt to deface me... In either case, Valkyria Chronicles, which is heavily inspired by WW2, makes for a more authentic WW2 experience than a game supposedly dedicated to WW2. That was the point.

I have played it, and I focused on the women in it as that's been the core point of the discussion, not exactly a great surprise.

Given that the appearance of one women in what might be front-line combat has many up in arms in terms of authenticity, I find it hard to imagine a series that has multiple women in front line roles could be considered to be more authentic.

Once again you fail to recognize that a game does not have to be either completely authentic or completely not. It can be somewhere in between. The online portion of BF1, as looks to be the case with BF5 too, has forsaken any and all authenticity. It's not a suitable counter because it is a cheap way of discrediting any criticism without actually bringing fourth coherent arguments. A game being a game does not mean that it should not attempt to maintain coherency or be consistent with the setting that it creates, or, in this case, recreates.

Actually I'm 100% fine with a game falling between the two extremes. After all I'm not the one claiming this should not be called a WW2 game because of one element of what is the multi-player.

Because we already know the release settings and Yugoslavia is not one of them? They are as follows...
France, Norway, Rotterdam, North African Desert at launch.

I was referring to the apperance of women in the game, not a specific example.

And again you're working off of the assumption that it has to be either 100% accurate or 100% not. I criticized both BF1 and Dunkirk for not being authentic. Simply put, I hold everything up to the same scrutiny unless the creators are being honest about their intentions saying that they are only vaguely basing it on a historical setting. And as I've made quite clear, I make room for it not being 100% accurate.

I'm not, that's been the crux of your argument (that BFV shouldn't be a WW2 game due to its inaccuracy).

"Don't sell it as being a WW2 game when it isn't."

You have no reason of knowing this, but I study history at university. I love it. It's a passion of mine. I don't expect you to sympathize with my position, but surely, you can at least understand why a person who is very interested in history is annoyed at seeing companies pretending to portray a historical period while at the same time making no effort to portray it as it were? Also, are you under the impression that I'm somehow defending what someone else are saying? I ask because you keep bringing up the people who focus only on the presence of a woman soldier in BF5, which I believe I've made abundantly clear is not my only concern with the game, and outside of either coloring me as one of them, or thinking that I am defending what they're saying, I really don't understand what your goal is with constantly bringing it up. I'm here to voice my opinions on the lacking authenticity of the game in a matter serving as a sort of continuation of my thoughts on BF1. Nothing else.

Am I not permitted to bring the wider discussion around this up?

​

How many times do I have to admit to the possibility of me being wrong before you drop this?

Over and out!

Its a discussion, if you no longer wish to take part that is your option.

 

[TenEightyOne]

A dev said, 'fun over realism'. Fine. But what's fun in a woman with metal arm fighting on the frontline of what's said to be the Western Front of WW2?.

What's the fun in creating one's own imaginary role in one of the bloodiest conflicts of all time? Why don't we upload family photos so the game can render them crying around our (closed) casket for a 3-hour vigil before we're allowed to disconnect? No respawns, obvs, just a stone gathering moss in a rainy churchyard somewhere.

If the things presented in the trailer are player customisation options (and that seemed to be the focus of where the game is going in 'player content') then it really doesn't matter - BF multiplayer loadouts normally allow one to choose a range of items that wouldn't realistically be in-theatre or even chosen by the soldier themself. If BF have found some interesting character stories that they want to represent then that's fine too although they're probably wishing they'd elucidated a little more.

At the moment we don't know the context of these characters or how they fit into the story arc. We don't know what "special abilities make you the only person who can complete this mission" or other similar trope normally used to shoehorn extraordinary characters into extreme game missions. Personally I feel that some off-the-wall will be refreshing after the down-home 2D-character turd that was the last CoD campaign outing or the bluff, grunty, uninteresting (and bugged as hell) BF4 campaign that seemed to spend a long time showing a broken aircraft carrier in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Jawehawk]

After all I'm not the one claiming this should not be called a WW2 game because of one element of what is the multi-player.

And neither am I, as I've made abundantly clear. I've tried to bring the discussion around to other topics, but you absolutely refuse to talk about anything but the inclusion of women. That's fine. That's your prerogative. But don't go saying that my focus is solely on that, when it clearly isn't.

I'm not, that's been the crux of your argument (that BFV shouldn't be a WW2 game due to its inaccuracy).

My argument, as I've reiterated multiple times, is that a game that fails to convey it's setting (talking about online here) beyond just the visuals of its equipment is not doing enough to represent it's setting. I've also stated that that is perfectly okay, although if you do so, you ought to at least be honest about it. Don't claim to respect history and to balance fun and authenticity, when absolutely none of the focus is on authenticity. Failure to be inspired by your source material is, as I've already said, a missed opportunity.

Am I not permitted to bring the wider discussion around this up?

You are, but it's rather pointless to continue to bring it up with me when I've already stated that I have no interest in it. I haven't seen the videos or read the rants. The entirety of my involvement in this is watching the trailer and some of the PR for the game, and reading on this forum. I do not care about the people holding pitchforks. I don't represent them and they don't represent me. And don't bother answering the questions I was asking...​

Failure to acknowledge the entirety of someone's posts, either through intent, or lacking reading comprehension is a recurring issue in this thread. I am out.

 

[Scaff]

And neither am I, as I've made abundantly clear. I've tried to bring the discussion around to other topics, but you absolutely refuse to talk about anything but the inclusion of women. That's fine. That's your prerogative. But don't go saying that my focus is solely on that, when it clearly isn't.​

Then why was your initial reaction to it this.....

Another reskinned Battlefield 3, this time with extra political correctness to appease the SJW's, and just like BF1, doesn't make any attempts to be even remotely authentic regarding the historical period that it is supposed to take place in. So basically just more trash from a company who has fallen down a long way since the greatness of BF2 and 2142...

....not that I've said it was your sole focus, but it certainly was a focus.

My argument, as I've reiterated multiple times, is that a game that fails to convey it's setting (talking about online here) beyond just the visuals of its equipment is not doing enough to represent it's setting. I've also stated that that is perfectly okay, although if you do so, you ought to at least be honest about it. Don't claim to respect history and to balance fun and authenticity, when absolutely none of the focus is on authenticity. Failure to be inspired by your source material is, as I've already said, a missed opportunity.

You know all that from a 60 second trailer.

You are, but it's rather pointless to continue to bring it up with me when I've already stated that I have no interest in it. I haven't seen the videos or read the rants. The entirety of my involvement in this is watching the trailer and some of the PR for the game, and reading on this forum. I do not care about the people holding pitchforks. I don't represent them and they don't represent me. And don't bother answering the questions I was asking...

You kicked of your part in the discussion with a rant about Political correctness and SJW's, you certainly seemed to have an interest in those views given that you used them.​

Failure to acknowledge the entirety of someone's posts, either through intent, or lacking reading comprehension is a recurring issue in this thread. I am out.

Why do I need to specifically repeat an agreement to points I have already agreed with you on? However its nice to see that the result is a personal dig, do keep it up.

 

[dzumaalcapone]

Fun over realism + putting a lot of women there = shooting women is fun?

 

[Jawehawk]

Then why was your initial reaction to it this.....

....not that I've said it was your sole focus, but it certainly was a focus.​

As I've already explained, it was a continuation of my opinion on BF1. This was not evident from my original post, and I've admitted to this mistake earlier in this thread.

You said, and I quote. "After all I'm not the one claiming this should not be called a WW2 game because of one element of what is the multi-player."
That is, to me, very clearly you outright saying that it is the only element I am focused on. It was not in response to anything pertaining to the people on YouTube with the pitchforks. Within the confines of what you were responding to, it could only ever be directed at me. If it was directed at the other people, the ones who are only focused on the issue of female inclusion, then there would be no point of you saying it then and there. Perhaps I am misunderstanding. Perhaps you weren't referring to me. But if that is the case, then the placement of that sentence really makes no sense. How am I supposed to know when you're referring to me, and when you're referring to the other people, if you do so freely and without a context that makes the "target" transparent.

You know all that from a 60 second trailer.

I infer it from the trailer and from what BF1 was. It's certainly more evidence to go on than what you are operating with.

You kicked of your part in the discussion with a rant about Political correctness and SJW's, you certainly seemed to have an interest in those views given that you used them.

​

And I have at least partially already admitted to the possibility of being wrong in this regard, thus making it a moot point. And one sentence hardly makes something a rant. In any case, that debate with me, not necessarily with others, is seemingly done with. Continuously bringing it up has little point.

Why do I need to specifically repeat an agreement to points I have already agreed with you on? However its nice to see that the result is a personal dig, do keep it up.

It's an observation based on the same points having to be thrown about time and time again and constantly being quoted by people saying that I am arguing for 100% accuracy regardless of how many times I've said the contrary. When people are accusing (a much harsher word than I'd like to use, but I can't think of a substitute right now) you of the same thing, regardless of how many times you've said things to the contrary, then how is that not either willfully ignoring what you're saying, or lacking reading comprehension? What else can it be?

 

[SestoScudo]

Another overlooked fact that the German Invasion of the Soviet Union included Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland along with the Croatian Legion.

If character customisation allows me to create historical units or battalions. Im more than happy to welcome it.

I dont mind creating a Arab Legion or Jewish volunteer soldiers for the British. Or a Black soldier that fought for the Nazis or the Free Arab Legion or the Spanish blue division.

For the Free French forces I would not mind making a Senegalese soldier or a Moroccan one or the French foreign legion.

So much possibilities I hope the customisation allows this.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Another overlooked fact that the German Invasion of the Soviet Union included Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland along with the Croatian Legion.

If character customisation allows me to create historical units or battalions. Im more than happy to welcome it.

I dont mind creating a Arab Legion or Jewish volunteer soldiers for the British. Or a Black soldier that fought for the Nazis or the Free Arab Legion or the Spanish blue division.

For the Free French forces I would not mind making a Senegalese soldier or a Moroccan one or the French foreign legion.

So much possibilities I hope the customisation allows this.

Not forgetting that British Indian army had 2.5 million men, almost as many as were in Britain's central army in 1945.

 

[MeanElf]

...I have played it, and I focused on the women in it as that's been the core point of the discussion, not exactly a great surprise.

Given that the appearance of one women in what might be front-line combat has many up in arms in terms of authenticity, I find it hard to imagine a series that has multiple women in front line roles could be considered to be more authentic...​

Absolutely. Odd though how far less folks used to get all worked up back then - @Jawehawk you walked right into that trap of your own making; accept with good grace now, eh? By the way, the correct ending to a discussion radio style is simply "out" as 'over' indicates a response is required but 'out' does not - "Over and out" is therefore a confusion that film and books have incorrectly propagated.​

 

[Jawehawk]

Absolutely. Odd though how far less folks used to get all worked up back then - @Jawehawk you walked right into that trap of your own making; accept with good grace now, eh? By the way, the correct ending to a discussion radio style is simply "out" as 'over' indicates a response is required but 'out' does not - "Over and out" is therefore a confusion that film and books have incorrectly propagated.​

What are you on about? I attempted to illustrate just how little I think BF5 portrays WW2 by comparing it to a game that is not a WW2 game, yet somehow manages to feel closer to it than a game that is supposedly a fully fledged WW2 game. There was no trap. I did not expect Scaff to start talking about the portrayal of women in VC, as it wasn't relevant to why I brought the game up. Scaff then continues with his razor sharp focus on the inclusion of women, the same focus that he complains about others having, while ignoring every single other aspect that, in the case of VC, makes it feel like a WW2 setting despite not being so.

There's been mention of people being too quick to jump on inclusions of gender or race, such as in the case of BF5, as being the result of political correctness. I've already agreed that this can and does happen. What you and others in this thread fail to realise, however, is that you (Scaff, TenEightyOne, and possibly you) are doing the exact same thing, just from the other side of the argument. The moment someone are even remotely critical of the inclusion of a gender or race, you instantly assume them to be bigots. The level of hypocrisy is insane.

And I wasn't aware that there was a correct "radio style" ending to a discussion on a forum


I am done. I won't bother reading any further replies in this thread. If anyone feel like they have counter arguments that I absolutely have to read, feel free to PM me, and I'll read it, and perhaps reply. But I will have no part in this madness in here any longer.

 

[ImaRobot]

Thank God.

 

[Scaff]

What are you on about? I attempted to illustrate just how little I think BF5 portrays WW2 by comparing it to a game that is not a WW2 game, yet somehow manages to feel closer to it than a game that is supposedly a fully fledged WW2 game. There was no trap. I did not expect Scaff to start talking about the portrayal of women in VC, as it wasn't relevant to why I brought the game up. Scaff then continues with his razor sharp focus on the inclusion of women, the same focus that he complains about others having, while ignoring every single other aspect that, in the case of VC, makes it feel like a WW2 setting despite not being so.

Seriously!

The main source of ire around the BFV trailer for many, including you, is the inclusion of a women in what may be a front-line role. You have quite literally made post, after post about it. Using it, in part, to dismiss BFV as having any basis in reality (I quote "Don't sell it as being a WW2 game when it isn't.").

To then claim a title, which if you google image search for its title around 50% of them are women in front-line roles, is a better representation is quite frankly a wide open goal.

I didn't bring the topic of a women in BFV into this discussion, but if your going to use it as part of your issue with the title and then cite VC, well that's a door you opened. Don't then complain when its pointed out.

The swimsuit element of one of the DLC pack must however be considered particularly authentic.

https://gematsu.com/2018/03/valkyria-chronicles-4-season-pass-announced

There's been mention of people being too quick to jump on inclusions of gender or race, such as in the case of BF5, as being the result of political correctness. I've already agreed that this can and does happen. What you and others in this thread fail to realise, however, is that you (Scaff, TenEightyOne, and possibly you) are doing the exact same thing, just from the other side of the argument. The moment someone are even remotely critical of the inclusion of a gender or race, you instantly assume them to be bigots. The level of hypocrisy is insane.

I'm not going to speak for others in this regard, but in regard to myself, you really should be more careful about the accusations you level.

You see a claim that I assume people to be bigots for being even remotely critical of the inclusion of a gender or race flies in the face of me saying...

"I didn't automatically "assume that everyone who take issue with the portrayal of women in the game is misogynist", I actually set a very specific criteria around it. That being, those who ignore other historical inaccuracies but take issue with women and/or non-white portrayals in a game that are not 100% accurate."

....now its not like I said this in any old post, but rather I said this directly to you the last time you made this accusation!

Lets be clear the issue I have with you position I made abundantly clear...

"My 'issue' with your position is that I personally think its an absurd standard to hold an entertainment medium to."

...as such you have no reason at all to have miss-represented my view on this at all.

I am done. I won't bother reading any further replies in this thread. If anyone feel like they have counter arguments that I absolutely have to read, feel free to PM me, and I'll read it, and perhaps reply. But I will have no part in this madness in here any longer.

That's the third time you've said you're done, we shall see.

 

[MeanElf]

@Jawehawk - Scaff has just explained it perfectly, so I shall leave it at that.

As for the correct procedure words for radio messages, no indeed, not on forums - but using "over and out" is very incorrect anywhere.

 

[RYAN]

God forbid when the EA play multiplayer reveal happens and inevitably more customisation gets shown. Can't imagine what this thread will be like. Little to no actual discussion on the actual game and its features happens in the thread anyway....

 

[Caz]

Game looks like its gonna be extremely fun to play.

I played bc2,1943,bf3 and bf4 extensively but stopped playing due to drama within my platoon which fractured my friends list terribly.
Actually stopped playing multiplayer for a few years because of it.
Hardline didnt attract me in any way but i loved the campaign in BF1 and the war stories format.

Looking forward to getting in on the MP on this one though.

 

[Scaff]

New info and concept art.

https://www.battlefield.com/news/article/ww2-as-you-have-never-seen-it-before-battlefield-5

 

[TenEightyOne]

I've just finished writing a piece for the Centre de la Memoire at Oradour-sur-Glane and this picture really reminds me of some of the archive photos of the 2nd Panzer Division making their way through France in early June 1944 although these might not be Panzers... @Rage Racer will be able to tell me exactly what they are, I'm sure.

As an afterthought to that perhaps the game will cover some of the civilian massacres (and resistance battles) on their route northwards to Normandy?

 

[Rage Racer]

I've just finished writing a piece for the Centre de la Memoire at Oradour-sur-Glane and this picture really reminds me of some of the archive photos of the 2nd Panzer Division making their way through France in early June 1944 although these might not be Panzers... @Rage Racer will be able to tell me exactly what they are, I'm sure.

As an afterthought to that perhaps the game will cover some of the civilian massacres (and resistance battles) on their route northwards to Normandy?


View attachment 739626

PzKpfw. IV Ausf. H.

AFAIK they are period/place correct. They were featured in the Normandy stage of the "WW2 Chronicles" event in War Thunder.

 

[TenEightyOne]

PzKpfw. IV Ausf. H.

AFAIK they are period/place correct. They were featured in the Normandy stage of the "WW2 Chronicles" event in War Thunder.

I knew you'd know!

The 2nd Division were despatched north from the south of France in response to the D-Day landings, on the way they committed some horrendous atrocities against some towns/villages, possibly in retribution for acts committed against the German occupiers by the 'Maquis' (named for the hillside gorse). There are some fascinating stories to be told in there for sure.

 

[BoneSawTX]

I’m a WWII history nut, I prefer my WWII games be accurate and not take liberties. That’s why I’m going with Post Scriptum and Hell Let Loose.

 

[Kitten]

I am getting vibes from BFBC2 Port Valdez, from the gameplay of Grand Operations on Narvik. I might have to actually buy this..

 

[RYAN]

For anyone wanting the 5 BF1 variants and early beta access. I saw that Amazon were offering the enlister offer (early beta access and the 5 BF1 weapons) so I tried the old Pre-order and cancel trick. Did this for a few betas in the past. I pre ordered yesterday and got the code today. So for anyone wanting the 5 Pre-order weapons it seems to work. Just don't forget to cancel the order once you've used the code. I will end up pre-ordering properly closer to release. Just dont see the point in pre-ordering and committing so early.

You can't do this on PSN as they charge you the money straight away, Whereas on Amazon they only charge you once your order gets shipped. So as long as you cancel it won't cost you anything.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Good call there. Order, wait for confirmation e-mail, cancel order, receive delayed weapon code next day?

 

[RYAN]

Good call there. Order, wait for confirmation e-mail, cancel order, receive delayed weapon code next day?

I waited until after I used the code before cancelling just to make sure.

 

[Sander 001]

I’m excited for this now since I got BF1 Revolution for pretty cheap and have been enjoying it far more than I thought I would! Game looks and sounds great and I’m floored especially by how smooth and responsive it is!

I love playing medic and the default Cei Rigotti rifle is awesome.

Also, I love Operations too. I prefer it over Conquest, Conquest seems like once one team is behind, it’s really difficult to catch up. You also get shot in the back much more while Operation is a more head on battle.

 

[RYAN]

I'm still playing BF1 aswell, Hop on to do the Road to Battlefield V steps each week. Still enjoying the game. People in Heavy bombers keep me away from operations though, I tend to prefer Conquest at this point even though the Muromets is a bit broken in that mode too.

I’m excited for this now since I got BF1 Revolution for pretty cheap and have been enjoying it far more than I thought I would! Game looks and sounds great and I’m floored especially by how smooth and responsive it is!

I love playing medic and the default Cei Rigotti rifle is awesome.

Also, I love Operations too. I prefer it over Conquest, Conquest seems like once one team is behind, it’s really difficult to catch up. You also get shot in the back much more while Operation is a more head on battle.

Considering you've got access to all the DLCs with Revolution I would recommend unlocking the Fedorov Avtomat and Howell automatic. Great Medic weapons, The Fedorov the best CQC Medic rifle in the game and the Howell Auto being a great all rounder.

 

[Sander 001]

I'm still playing BF1 aswell, Hop on to do the Road to Battlefield V steps each week. Still enjoying the game. People in Heavy bombers keep me away from operations though, I tend to prefer Conquest at this point even though the Muromets is a bit broken in that mode too.



Considering you've got access to all the DLCs with Revolution I would recommend unlocking the Fedorov Avtomat and Howell automatic. Great Medic weapons, The Fedorov the best CQC Medic rifle in the game and the Howell Auto being a great all rounder.

Two more kills with the C97 pistol and I'll have the Fedorov Optical! Is that the better one? I do have the Fedorov Trench but I don't like it nearly as much as the Rigotti, Storm Dragon or the Setblastder Factory. I definitely try for long/medium range engagements, maybe that's why.

I'll need to look into the Howell!

Yeah the Bombers can be really annoying but I try to secure the AA guns, in a recent match I took down at least 12 bombers plus other aircraft! Also, since I tend to play longer ranges, I'm able to avoid the Bombers some times.

 

[DesertPenguin]

I just worked on unlocking the Fedorov Optical and damn that pistol sucks right? So weak!

I thought it would be better because more accurate but the sights just mess me up in close quarters

 

[RYAN]

Two more kills with the C97 pistol and I'll have the Fedorov Optical! Is that the better one? I do have the Fedorov Trench but I don't like it nearly as much as the Rigotti, Storm Dragon or the Setblastder Factory. I definitely try for long/medium range engagements, maybe that's why.

I'll need to look into the Howell!

Yeah the Bombers can be really annoying but I try to secure the AA guns, in a recent match I took down at least 12 bombers plus other aircraft! Also, since I tend to play longer ranges, I'm able to avoid the Bombers some times.

If the Fedorov isn't your thing the Howell Sniper variant should be. I'm surprised you like the Rigotti so much considering you say you play at range mostly. I'd consider the Rigotti a more close to medium range weapon which is why I recommended the Fedorov. But yeah, The Howell is more like the Mondragon or Selbstlader 1916 type.

I just worked on unlocking the Fedorov Optical and damn that pistol sucks right? So weak!

I thought it would be better because more accurate but the sights just mess me up in close quarters

I never use the Optical versions, Sight picture is horrible. The advantages of the Factory, Low Weight, Storm and Marksman/Sniper variants are way more useful in my opinion.