# If DICE really wanted to make a "new WW2 game" game, why only British and Germans? **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [September 20, 2018, 8:39pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/if-dice-really-wanted-to-make-a-new-ww2-game-game-why-only-british-and-germans/105796 "2018-09-20T20:39:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SirBobdk](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/sirbobdk/32/103491_2.png) [@SirBobdk](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/SirBobdk)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2018, 1:30pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/if-dice-really-wanted-to-make-a-new-ww2-game-game-why-only-british-and-germans/105796/41 "2018-10-28T13:30:00Z")
> [@](#): > > @GrimesSU wrote > I wasn’t talking about the Eastern Front between Germany and Russia. So what was you talking about. The British was fighting in africa, IItaly and far east from 1942 - 1944. I commented on this > [@](#): > > Because Britain and Germany made up like 90 percent of the war. Most of the war in Europe until 1944 in terms of trops and casualties was between Russian and Germany and in the Pacific between US and Japan. The British took part, but they did not account for 90%. ---
**Author:** ![DiabolicBroccoli](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/b782af/32.png) [@DiabolicBroccoli](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/DiabolicBroccoli)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2018, 8:40pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/if-dice-really-wanted-to-make-a-new-ww2-game-game-why-only-british-and-germans/105796/42 "2018-10-28T20:40:00Z")
> [@staRS-SirBob](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > @DiabolicBroccoli wrote > > Why? Because Britain and Germany made up like 90 percent of the war. > > Russia and Germany made up 90% of the war until 1944, USA and Japan in the pacific. How so? A few Russians fighting in the snow relying on only weather to be their enemies isn’t that much of an accomplishment. Winston Churchill and his military genius won WW2 > [@GrimesSU](#): > > > [@staRS-SirBob](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > @DiabolicBroccoli wrote > > > Why? Because Britain and Germany made up like 90 percent of the war. > > > > Russia and Germany made up 90% of the war until 1944, USA and Japan in the pacific. > > You may want to recheck your history on what the US and British were doing between 1942 and 1944 if you honestly believe that. Doesn’t matter how long they were involved, they did the most and this is proven. > [@staRS-SirBob](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > @GrimesSU wrote > > I wasn’t talking about the Eastern Front between Germany and Russia. > > So what was you talking about. > The British was fighting in africa, IItaly and far east from 1942 - 1944. > > I commented on this > > > [@](#): > > > > Because Britain and Germany made up like 90 percent of the war. > > Most of the war in Europe until 1944 in terms of trops and casualties was between Russian and Germany and in the Pacific between US and Japan. > The British took part, but they did not account for 90%. Just because more Russians died doesn’t mean they contributed more to the war effort than Britain. ---
**Author:** ![lorenzburg](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@lorenzburg](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/lorenzburg)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2018, 7:47am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/if-dice-really-wanted-to-make-a-new-ww2-game-game-why-only-british-and-germans/105796/43 "2018-11-02T07:47:00Z")
> [@ninjapenquinuk](#): > > i know you can’t have every country who was involved in ww2 represented, but to miss out the French during the fall of Europe or the Italians in the early n.african battles is poor. BFV really should have had the British and French v Germans and Italians in this first part, then introducing the soviets, USA and Japanese as they got involved. I’m guessing it’s more to do with the cosmetics side of things and them not having the time, or the willing, to do a whole bunch of cosmetics for the French and Italian armies, as well as those for the other 5 main participants. I know that I can’t have any faction in a WW2 game, their work is not free, some nations are worth of being done, others don’t. What I fear especially, is something that CoDWW2 did: Axis VS Allies, I hope that DICE won’t stick to this gross factions … But again going to maps count, I have no ideas on how many maps we’re going to have in BF5 but surely there will be countless opportunities to see the British and the Germans after launch, so instead of taking Italy’s and France’s possibilities why not adding other maps such as Saint Nazaire’s Raid and Dieppe, UK VS Germany. I know that those are set in 1942 but at launch we have battles in Africa of 1940 with the Germans, so if we are messing up the timeline it wouldn’t be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![ninjapenquinuk](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@ninjapenquinuk](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/ninjapenquinuk)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2018, 8:33am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/if-dice-really-wanted-to-make-a-new-ww2-game-game-why-only-british-and-germans/105796/44 "2018-11-02T08:33:00Z")
> [@lorenzburg](#): > > > [@ninjapenquinuk](#): > > > > i know you can’t have every country who was involved in ww2 represented, but to miss out the French during the fall of Europe or the Italians in the early n.african battles is poor. BFV really should have had the British and French v Germans and Italians in this first part, then introducing the soviets, USA and Japanese as they got involved. I’m guessing it’s more to do with the cosmetics side of things and them not having the time, or the willing, to do a whole bunch of cosmetics for the French and Italian armies, as well as those for the other 5 main participants. > > I know that I can’t have any faction in a WW2 game, their work is not free, some nations are worth of being done, others don’t. > What I fear especially, is something that CoDWW2 did: Axis VS Allies, I hope that DICE won’t stick to this gross factions … > > But again going to maps count, I have no ideas on how many maps we’re going to have in BF5 but surely there will be countless opportunities to see the British and the Germans after launch, so instead of taking Italy’s and France’s possibilities why not adding other maps such as Saint Nazaire’s Raid and Dieppe, UK VS Germany. I know that those are set in 1942 but at launch we have battles in Africa of 1940 with the Germans, so if we are messing up the timeline it wouldn’t be a problem. I’m also hating the idea of Axis vs Allies but DICE are doing that to make the cosmetics easier to manage. Though from what i’ve read/heard they will separate the Soviets from the UK/USA and Japanese from the Germans. Apparently it’s OK to have soldiers dressed as Americans in UK based maps such as Narvik and vice versa, but DICE dont want the controversy of Germans on Iwo Jima or Brits at Stalingrad ---
**Author:** ![lorenzburg](https://battlefieldforum.co/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@lorenzburg](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/lorenzburg)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2018, 8:47am UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/if-dice-really-wanted-to-make-a-new-ww2-game-game-why-only-british-and-germans/105796/45 "2018-11-02T08:47:00Z")
> [@ninjapenquinuk](#): > > > [@lorenzburg](#): > > > > > [@ninjapenquinuk](#): > > > > > > i know you can’t have every country who was involved in ww2 represented, but to miss out the French during the fall of Europe or the Italians in the early n.african battles is poor. BFV really should have had the British and French v Germans and Italians in this first part, then introducing the soviets, USA and Japanese as they got involved. I’m guessing it’s more to do with the cosmetics side of things and them not having the time, or the willing, to do a whole bunch of cosmetics for the French and Italian armies, as well as those for the other 5 main participants. > > > > I know that I can’t have any faction in a WW2 game, their work is not free, some nations are worth of being done, others don’t. > > What I fear especially, is something that CoDWW2 did: Axis VS Allies, I hope that DICE won’t stick to this gross factions … > > > > But again going to maps count, I have no ideas on how many maps we’re going to have in BF5 but surely there will be countless opportunities to see the British and the Germans after launch, so instead of taking Italy’s and France’s possibilities why not adding other maps such as Saint Nazaire’s Raid and Dieppe, UK VS Germany. I know that those are set in 1942 but at launch we have battles in Africa of 1940 with the Germans, so if we are messing up the timeline it wouldn’t be a problem. > > I’m also hating the idea of Axis vs Allies but DICE are doing that to make the cosmetics easier to manage. Though from what i’ve read/heard they will separate the Soviets from the UK/USA and Japanese from the Germans. Apparently it’s OK to have soldiers dressed as Americans in UK based maps such as Narvik and vice versa, but DICE dont want the controversy of Germans on Iwo Jima or Brits at Stalingrad Are you serious? I hope they won’t mix US and Brits. It would be really weird, especially for the voicelines. [Previous page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/if-dice-really-wanted-to-make-a-new-ww2-game-game-why-only-british-and-germans/105796.md?page=2)