With Germany now controlling the vital railway hub of Amiens, the Allied armies in France would have been divided. And if Paris were to fall, the surrender of France would likely follow. In this situation Britain would have no choice but to seek a truce while they planned their new strategy. This speculative situation would surely impact the outcome of the war.
With Germany now controlling the vital railway hub of Amiens, the Allied armies in France would have been divided...
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
They lost like faggots
now i’m no history buff but from what I’ve heard, the war was next to hopeless for the Central Powers not too far after the war started, yeah?
Based.
It was winnable until the US entered the war but you're not that far off. The Entente prepared for that war pretty long before, 1905-07, so it was definitely hard af to overcome the forts they built.
this only reminds me how apparently much of the campaign from BFV was straight up made up, not embellished like BF1, but on the verge of practically not existing minus an isolated occurance that was barely a footnote
I think the one that got a lot of attention was the one with the rebel woman stealing German weapon/bomb components.
I ended up liking BF1 way more than I should have, but all I could think about then and now is that there will never be another 2/2142-like Battlefield game again.
which was actually done by a team of Norwegians after a team of 30 British personal died in a plane crash on route they decided to go alone and do it themselves.
>I think the one that got a lot of attention was the one with the rebel woman stealing German weapon/bomb components.
You mean the one where they replaced the real life entire danish or norwegian (it was definitely a nordic country but i can't remember specifically) military with two women and like four unrelated dudes?
Holy fuck I was literally listening to this
youtube.com
when I came across your thread, and it instantly brought be back to when I played BF1
I really need to play that game again, Operations was god tier
Yeah that’s gotta be the one
Sounds more like than a footnote, but the takeaway is DICE overwriting actual history
The closest I felt was Planetside 2 but that was way less organized and less inspiring than what BF1 did, I always hope I can come into a match early to listen to those rallying speeches+full team charge
youtu.be
>Be EA/DICE
>Accidentally make fun game
>Have to apologize and "fix it" by making Battlefield 5
what did they do to Operations in 5 that made it a downgrade? i heard many complaints about that
I dropped the game immediately on launch and let me be the first to say I couldn't even try to play Operations in 5, no one was playing that mode.
i'm sorry to hear about your buyers remorse, but honestly the way they were acting should have been a loud and clear warning for you to let the Youtubers go in first and release their final product footage, save yourself some money.
>Buyers remorse
Worse
My old man bought two copies, one for himself and me, because he wanted to play it with me. He ended up hating it too.
my father did the same for me with Overwatch, he got bored of it within a week and i only really stuck around because my friends were still a little interested, if only just for Junkrat bullshittery.
There's many reasons why Operations falls flat in BFV. I will list a few
Game modes: BF1 Operations were focused solely on one gamemode, now called Breakthrough in BFV. In BF1, the attackers had 3 battalion to attack and take over the all the sectors that are laid out across different maps. The defenders had unlimited respawns to hold their ground and defend all 3 attacks. Attacks win if they are able to capture all sectors, whereas defenders win if they stop the attackers from achieving this. If and when an entire attackers battalion was wiped out, reinforcements would arrive and they game would play out. Any advances made by the attackers would continue with the next battalion, so if you captured 3 sectors and you ran out, the next day the attackers start with 3 sectors. This gives a real genuine sense that your are fighting for something, either in capturing or defending ground. It was entirely possible for the defenders to hold out on the first sector of the first map for 3 battalion, and it was possible for the attackers to win using a single battalion.
With BFV, they changed it so Grand Operations would have; 3 game modes, including the likes of Conquest and Breakthrough, and a 4th mode being a tiebreaker. The problem with this is that they added things like Conquest which really does not suit the attack/defend gameplay. Also the GO carries on regardless if you win or lose the previous game, and the only round that matters is the 3rd round which decides if you win or lose the overall Grand Operation. This makes the first 2 round entirely pointless since they don't actually mean anything.
Then there's the atmosphere. The video in post completely captures the atmosphere in BF1 Operations. Artillery raining down, as the officer give their troops a rally, then he gives the order to charge by blowing the whistle and all the men scream forward. And that wasn't just for the beginning, but for every sector taken. BFV has none of this.
>mixing gamemodes in what should be a mode about maintaining the front lines
i can get if they want to spice things up with a special target that must be protected/destroyed or one of those boxes from Rush to arm, but it sounds foolish even on paper to put something as sandbox as Conquest in that mode
There's a lot more problems with Grand Operations, but there's a character limit, but the reasons I posted were largely to do with GO. There's other problems with the game that also are a detriment to GO. The simplest way to put is that DICE somehow made BFV Operations look like a prequel to BF1 Operations.
If they had the atmosphere, cinematic approach and world encompassing war of BF1, which had every major power in WW1, and did it for WW2 instead, this game could've been the best in the series. Honestly they had real potential in making an really epic WW2 Operations mode. Imagine storming the beaches of Normandy, or the massive tank battles of Kursk, or the final days of Berlin, with the same ferocity as we have in BF1.
But it's not meant to be
Prior to US entry, I don't think a victory was possible to either side, the whole thing was going to continue to grind down manpower on either side until an armistice was offered with no victor. The bonus of this would be that the monarchy in Prussia and Austria would've remained and brought stability to the regions, which would've delayed the rise of Fascism by at least a few decades, if not permanently.
The downside is that Europe would still be in shambles and attempting to rebuild themselves and America would be free to do whatever the fuck it wanted until the depression hit. Once that comes about, with no war to pull them out of it, it's likely communism or fascism would start to rise on US soil as things continued to degrade. With a similar rebellion as pre-WW2 Germany, if the fascists won, we might see more a more belligerent US in Asia as it seeks to further colonize (Especially if Japan provokes them like it did in history), if it rolled communist, we could've saw a delayed WW2 with a US-Soviet alliance attempting to spread their ideals to Europe in a conventional war.
Personally, I think the US-Soviet alliance would've made for some absolutely nuts alternate history, being pitted against the anciem regimes of Europe in a bizzaro-war with the US striking Britain, France, and Spain and Russia taking on Germany and the Baltic, and I don't even like communism.
HEUTE HAB ICH IHN GESEHN DIESEN ARTILERRIE OFFIZIER DEN SIE DURCHBRUCHMÜLLER NENNEN
AH-HA
If you didn't exclusively use the MG15 you are not allowed to reply to my post
What are the player numbers for BFV right now anyways? If it isn't dead i might consider borrowing a friends copy to try myself