# How accurate is bf1? **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [December 4, 2016, 4:37pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764 "2016-12-04T16:37:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Sindari](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sindari/32/103477_2.png) [@Sindari](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sindari)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/61 "2016-12-14T15:34:00Z")
> [@Nikraaa](#): > > an insult to everyone who fought and died in the trenches. No. So very very wrong. For all your mockery and self proclaimed expertise, this one comment proves beyond all doubt you have no idea what you are talking about. They didn’t fight and die _in the trenches_ Bravo sir, never has someone so expertly tripped themselves up while trying to sound clever. ---
**Author:** ![kaliyl777](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/kaliyl777/32/102459_2.png) [@kaliyl777](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/kaliyl777)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 3:56pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/62 "2016-12-14T15:56:00Z")
> [@InqusitorLorne](#): > > You clearly don’t understand the point if you go off on complete tangents to try and make your argument more credible. > > Baldur’s Gate and Dragon Age are both fantasy RPG’s. WWI and the Modern Era are not, so you shouldn’t see Light Machine Guns (or DICE’s interpretation) or an entire class based on automatics during an era that was barely using technologies such as barrel rifling. You shouldn’t see an armored Zepplin (biggest Oxy-moron ever) sitting in the sky. I could go on with examples, but I feel like that would just go straight over your head. > > And another clerical point; who the hell makes a WWI themed game with no French or Russians out of the box? Are you this willfully blind? > > Put down the controller and pick up a book. The guns in the American civil war(1860-1865) were rifled. And the gattlin gun was already created and being used in the civil war. The guns in the game weren’t just created by dice, they put guns in the game that were deamed to complex to manufacture, or use in the dirt and mud. But for the sake on not just having 3 guns in the game, dice put them in. ---
**Author:** ![CnConrad](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/cnconrad/32/101538_2.png) [@CnConrad](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/CnConrad)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 3:58pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/63 "2016-12-14T15:58:00Z")
> [@jocasrp](#): > > First of all im a big history buff and when i found out the next bf was going to be set in ww1 i flipped > Im having a blast playing the game but in a scale of 1 to 10 how much of it is accurate? 3/10 Historically authentic not at all accurate. ---
**Author:** ![ZOMBIE\_BAIT\_368](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/zombie_bait_368/32/104197_2.png) [@ZOMBIE\_BAIT\_368](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/ZOMBIE_BAIT_368)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/64 "2016-12-14T18:01:00Z")
> [@StarscreamUK](#): > > This ends now. > > Any further discussion on the colour of soldiers in a GAME will result in 1 year suspensions from me. Yes, 1 year. > > I am sick to deaht of the “omg dice are racist by including black soldiers there werent that many whine whine whine” > > well guess what, there weren’t many soldiers being brought back to life with a syringe after being hit by a tank shell or gassed. > > when they died they died, they didnt respawn back at base. > > it’s a game > > it isn’t meant to be 100% historically accurate Hurr durr the game isnt 100% realistic so why not add playable martian characters too? ---
**Author:** ![SgtSanchez68](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/c0e974/32.png) [@SgtSanchez68](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/SgtSanchez68)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 6:12pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/65 "2016-12-14T18:12:00Z")
> [@xxT00Lxx](#): > > There was no respawn. I see what you did there… ---
**Author:** ![OrionHunter88](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/orionhunter88/32/103041_2.png) [@OrionHunter88](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/OrionHunter88)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/66 "2016-12-14T20:40:00Z")
Well the multiplayer part is obviously not terribly realistic. The campaign stories are loosely based on historical people and events - I’d give those 4-5/10 or so depending. Not really sure how this scale works as I dont’ know what we are comparing it to. I’ve certainly never played a video game that was terribly historically accurate. Uniforms seem pretty accurate. Weapons. Well obviously they had to take liberties in order to have more than LMGs and bolt actions. Semi-autos and SMGs were pretty rare. Shotguns were mostly a USA thing from what I understand. The biggest lack of historical accuracy I’ll give this game is how little artillery is in it. And what little there is is quite weak. HE Artillery is the reason trenches happened. Artillery was the biggest killer by far in WW1. At least 60% of all casualties were caused by artillery. I also feel that static heavy MGs should deal more damage. ---
**Author:** ![Nikraaa](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Nikraaa](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Nikraaa)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 9:41am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/67 "2016-12-15T09:41:00Z")
> [@Sindari](#): > > > [@Nikraaa](#): > > > > an insult to everyone who fought and died in the trenches. > > No. > So very very wrong. > For all your mockery and self proclaimed expertise, this one comment proves beyond all doubt you have no idea what you are talking about. > They didn’t fight and die _in the trenches_ > Bravo sir, never has someone so expertly tripped themselves up while trying to sound clever. The sentence is not meant 100% litteraly, ¯\_(ツ)\_/¯. That’s just how it’s referred to. But just so you understand: in/above/by/in front of/behind - the trenches. You know, I saw you commenting that you did not want to reply someone, because he was obviosly dodging the subject and didn’t bring any good arguments - but just kept on insulting. Tell me, how are you so different? 😃 By the way I can recommend the book “War IN the Trenches” by Peter Hicks. ---
**Author:** ![GoldenWrench67](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@GoldenWrench67](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/GoldenWrench67)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 1:21pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/68 "2016-12-15T13:21:00Z")
Not a single trench battle contributed to a victory, they were stalemates and a waste of life. Sure, thousands lived and died in trenches, and it’s a ‘hallmark’ of WW1, but like every war in history, it was hours of boredom punctuated by moments of terror. ---
**Author:** ![GerocK](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/gerock/32/100950_2.png) [@GerocK](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/GerocK)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 1:30pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/69 "2016-12-15T13:30:00Z")
The Codex is actually very nice to read for historical purposes. The uniforms, vehicles and weapons are all authentic; it’s just that how many of them are in a single game and how they’re being used obviously isn’t how it was during WW1. ---
**Author:** ![Sindari](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sindari/32/103477_2.png) [@Sindari](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sindari)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 1:34pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/70 "2016-12-15T13:34:00Z")
> [@Nikraaa](#): > > > [@Sindari](#): > > > > > [@Nikraaa](#): > > > > > > an insult to everyone who fought and died in the trenches. > > > > No. > > So very very wrong. > > For all your mockery and self proclaimed expertise, this one comment proves beyond all doubt you have no idea what you are talking about. > > They didn’t fight and die _in the trenches_ > > Bravo sir, never has someone so expertly tripped themselves up while trying to sound clever. > > The sentence is not meant 100% litteraly, . That’s just how it’s referred to. > But just so you understand: in/above/by/in front of/behind - the trenches. > > You know, I saw you commenting that you did not want to reply someone, because he was obviosly dodging the subject and didn’t bring any good arguments - but just kept on insulting. Tell me, how are you so different? 😃 > > By the way I can recommend the book “War IN the Trenches” by Peter Hicks. Your posts are the insulting ones complete with words censored. Pointless linking that book tiltle, the word IN is not relevant whether you put it in capitals or not. You even said yourself that ‘IN the trenches’ is just a term. Then just a few sentences later you capitalise IN as if it that proves something, essentially arguing against your own point. You seem confused. Maybe jumping into a thread you weren’t part of and clearly haven’t understood wasn’t such a good idea after all? We only said the war was not _fought_ _in_ the trenches because that other guy clearly believed it was. It was not. If you know better, why do you even have a problem with anyone stating the truth? 150,000 people on the first day of the Somme did not die _in_ the trenches. Anyone who stayed in the trenches had a much better day. I don’t even know what point you are trying to make. Are you just frustrated that you can’t have a racist rant because you’ll get banned for a year? Or are you just trolling? ---
**Author:** ![A\_warped\_mind](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/a_warped_mind/32/101124_2.png) [@A\_warped\_mind](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/A_warped_mind)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 1:42pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/71 "2016-12-15T13:42:00Z")
If you want a realistic trench style WWI in this game this is how it will pan out in a 32 v 32 match. one side with BR’s in one trench the other side with theirs both sides have watercooled Machine guns (Maxim/Vickers etc etc) stationed at their trenches. After a certain amount of waiting and at the order, both sides climb over the top into No Mans Land and charge each other out of 32 per side 26 on each will be killed within 20 steps leaving a 6 v 6 fight for the rest of the match.(or both sides will be wiped out from the Artillery shells coming from behind) Or only one side will charge into no mans land while the other team rains lead down on the other team (the team still in the trench wins) hardly anyone fought in the actual trenches it was virtually impossible to get into the enemies trench (it could be done but was rare) most fighting was done from trench to trench with BR’s and watercooled machine guns or the over the top suicide run. There are plenty of images and literature on trench warfare enemy trenches never connected to each others (there is a great piece about an Aussie who dug through the trench walls and came out behind the Germans in theirs went on a bit of a killing spree as well)No mans Land in the middle were the killing fields. the pic is one half of a trench map it was almost identical the other side with NML in the middle ![](http://www.slidego.com/res/palooza/europe/WW1/21E208C0.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Sindari](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sindari/32/103477_2.png) [@Sindari](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sindari)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/72 "2016-12-15T14:20:00Z")
Lots of people with sense here. I must stop replying to the ones without any. ---
**Author:** ![Nikraaa](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Nikraaa](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Nikraaa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 7:26am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/73 "2016-12-16T07:26:00Z")
> [@Sindari](#): > > > [@Nikraaa](#): > > > > > [@Sindari](#): > > > > > > > [@Nikraaa](#): > > > > > > > > an insult to everyone who fought and died in the trenches. > > > > > > No. > > > So very very wrong. > > > For all your mockery and self proclaimed expertise, this one comment proves beyond all doubt you have no idea what you are talking about. > > > They didn’t fight and die _in the trenches_ > > > Bravo sir, never has someone so expertly tripped themselves up while trying to sound clever. > > > > The sentence is not meant 100% litteraly, . That’s just how it’s referred to. > > But just so you understand: in/above/by/in front of/behind - the trenches. > > > > You know, I saw you commenting that you did not want to reply someone, because he was obviosly dodging the subject and didn’t bring any good arguments - but just kept on insulting. Tell me, how are you so different? 😃 > > > > By the way I can recommend the book “War IN the Trenches” by Peter Hicks. > > Your posts are the insulting ones complete with words censored. > Pointless linking that book tiltle, the word IN is not relevant whether you put it in capitals or not. > You even said yourself that ‘IN the trenches’ is just a term. > Then just a few sentences later you capitalise IN as if it that proves something, essentially arguing against your own point. > You seem confused. > Maybe jumping into a thread you weren’t part of and clearly haven’t understood wasn’t such a good idea after all? > We only said the war was not _fought_ _in_ the trenches because that other guy clearly believed it was. It was not. > If you know better, why do you even have a problem with anyone stating the truth? > 150,000 people on the first day of the Somme did not die _in_ the trenches. Anyone who stayed in the trenches had a much better day. > I don’t even know what point you are trying to make. > Are you just frustrated that you can’t have a racist rant because you’ll get banned for a year? > Or are you just trolling? First of all, you don’t have to use “bad words” to be insulting. It’s something you can achieve alone by being condescending and arrogant. You are a great example of this. Perhaps I have a more old fashioned way of doing it, if you will. Are you not capable of understanding a simple hint? I did said that 'IN the trenches" is just a term, and that’s exactly why I referred to the book, that share’s the exact same sentence. It was deliberately to make a point that it’s used widely. So how can you possibly turn that into something to use against me? It’s seems like you’re a bit confused yourself. What guy? I reacted because you think that “Trench warfare played a negligible part in the war”, or at least GoldenWrench67 had that idea, but you backed him up. I understand that particular sentence just fine and since I couldn’t agree, I wanted you to elaborate and share your views. That’s where you started dodging the subject… aaaaaaand here we are. I don’t think we’ll come any closer to a clean debate, so let’s just agree to disagree. It’s Christmas after all. Cheers. ---
**Author:** ![jojyrocks](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/ad7895/32.png) [@jojyrocks](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/jojyrocks)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 7:40am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/74 "2016-12-16T07:40:00Z")
Its an arcade shooter that also includes some prototype weapons from WW1 that barely or never saw action. They do have the option of making this realism. All they have to do is; simply restrict “scoped snipers” to a certain number of slots. The rest can do with basic Irons sight and bayonets only, at least, that would have been true to the “feel” of WW1. Scouts all with bare basic irons and limited number of scope equipped snipers. ---
**Author:** ![Sindari](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sindari/32/103477_2.png) [@Sindari](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Sindari)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 3:38pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/75 "2016-12-16T15:38:00Z")
> [@Nikraaa](#): > > First of all, you don’t have to use “bad words” to be insulting. It’s something you can achieve alone by being condescending and arrogant. > You are a great example of this. Perhaps I have a more old fashioned way of doing it, if you will. > > Are you not capable of understanding a simple hint? I did said that 'IN the trenches" is just a term, and that’s exactly why I referred to the book, that share’s the exact same sentence. It was deliberately to make a point that it’s used widely. So how can you possibly turn that into something to use against me? It’s seems like you’re a bit confused yourself. > > What guy? I reacted because you think that “Trench warfare played a negligible part in the war”, or at least GoldenWrench67 had that idea, but you backed him up. I understand that particular sentence just fine and since I couldn’t agree, I wanted you to elaborate and share your views. > That’s where you started dodging the subject… aaaaaaand here we are. > > I don’t think we’ll come any closer to a clean debate, so let’s just agree to disagree. It’s Christmas after all. > > Cheers. You can stuff Christmas up your \*\*\* That’s pretty much the first comment you made when you came into the ‘discussion’ and now you want to play the poor little polite guy who tried to be reasonable and doesn’t like condascending arrogant remarks or rude words? Hilarious. You don’t get to mock and insult everyone, and then turn around and plead for everyone to be polite. You don’t even have a reason to argue with me, and certainly no reason to insult me. You’re now arguing that the war in the trenches was just a term and that’s exactly what I was arguing from the very first time I posted, and I never argued anything else. You somehow managed to start on me with your nasty comments when every point I expressed was exactly the same as what you now claim your point is too. Are you nuts or something? Maybe you should never have replied to me if you had a problem with something GoldenWrench67 said? When you did reply to me earlier you replied to someone saying exactly what you now claim is your main point. Why would you reply to: > [@Sindari](#): > > You only need to Google Trench Warfare to find out what it really means, and as you and I know it had nothing to do with fighting _in_ trenches Which you now claim is exactly your point with this condascending, arrogant comment (the\* first time\* anyone was condascending or arrogant in our ‘discussion’ importantly) > [@Nikraaa](#): > > Do you and GoldenWrench57 seriously mean that the war in the trenches played “a negligible part”? > Would you then be so kind to enlighten us all what really played a great role during WW1? > I’m really looking forward to hear your answer, based on your obviously well known facts from all the documentaries you watched… Your point now is exactly what I said in that comment of mine. So wtf did you start insulting me for? Just to troll? Just to remind you, you also continued the attack on me with > [@Nikraaa](#): > > You must have your head stuck up Sindari’s , and vice versa. > Stay golden. and > [@Nikraaa](#): > > The sentence is not meant 100% litteraly, All rude and condascending / arrogant - all the things you now claim to dislike in a post. You reap what you sow. You were condascending, arrogant and insulting to me long before I’d even spoken to you. Seriously, find someone else to troll before I report you for harrassment. ---
**Author:** ![GoldenWrench67](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@GoldenWrench67](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/GoldenWrench67)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2016, 3:04pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/76 "2016-12-18T15:04:00Z")
Try history. The Germans had advanced and were dug in. They put up concrete walls, lights, and even had running water. They were defending. The British didn’t do that for thier trenches, as that would be admitting that it was a stalemate. The reason most people believe that WW1 was all about trench warfare is because in 1916, at the Somme, they shot video for the first time, and the surviving video is trenches. The british had 60,000 casualties on July 1, most before noon that day. Going over the top became a tag line for mounting an useless, costly, and ultimately hopelesss offensive attack. There’s no tunnel fighting either in this game, but it happened. Trench warfare was defenders, armed to the teeth, and attackers advancing over no mans land, but first, you need to get through a 50 yard thick patch of barbed wire, 50 yards thick, not 50 yards long. A large number of allies died caught in the wire, never having fired a shot. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Beelzebub1](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/lord_beelzebub1/32/102669_2.png) [@Lord\_Beelzebub1](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Lord_Beelzebub1)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2016, 3:10pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/77 "2016-12-18T15:10:00Z")
> [@jocasrp](#): > > First of all im a big history buff and when i found out the next bf was going to be set in ww1 i flipped > Im having a blast playing the game but in a scale of 1 to 10 how much of it is accurate? You’re a “hig history buff” but you don’t know how accurate this game is? Apparently you’re not a history buff. You of all people should now. ---
**Author:** ![GerocK](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/gerock/32/100950_2.png) [@GerocK](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/GerocK)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2016, 9:09am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/78 "2016-12-19T09:09:00Z")
> [@Lord\_Beelzebub1](#): > > > [@jocasrp](#): > > > > First of all im a big history buff and when i found out the next bf was going to be set in ww1 i flipped > > Im having a blast playing the game but in a scale of 1 to 10 how much of it is accurate? > > You’re a “hig history buff” but you don’t know how accurate this game is? Apparently you’re not a history buff. You of all people should now. History buff can mean he knows a lot about one particular time in history, it doesn’t mean he has to know everything about every period of time. But I’m pretty he sure meant he’s very interested in ww1 history 😉 ---
**Author:** ![DCSTomcat](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/dcstomcat/32/101664_2.png) [@DCSTomcat](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/DCSTomcat)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2016, 9:28am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/79 "2016-12-19T09:28:00Z")
I’m a history buff too and I find World War One to be the most boring period of modern history. ---
**Author:** ![Halcyon\_Creed\_N7](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/halcyon_creed_n7/32/100954_2.png) [@Halcyon\_Creed\_N7](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/Halcyon_Creed_N7)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2016, 10:26am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764/80 "2016-12-19T10:26:00Z")
kek BF1 is to WW1 as Hardline is to US law enforcement [Previous page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764.md?page=3) [Next page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/how-accurate-is-bf1/102764.md?page=5)