Historical inaccuracy

I will also say i truly loved the previous battle field one but, manipulating history for your own adgenda ( what ever that may be) is not ok

BF1 was historically accurate?  I heard similar complaints about minorities being misrepresented in that game as in BF V, and the weapons were out of all proportion to what was actually available to most troops.  EA probably guessed correctly that few of today's gamers would be happy with nothing but bolt action rifles, so there are sub-machine guns and so on in that game which in reality were rarities used by few troops in WWI.  The German A7V tank--they built 20 of them, and none ever made it to Palestine--but there it is in the game.  DICE put gameplay ahead of historical accuracy by a mile in BF1, and that's the right thing for a game developer to do because a historically accurate game from that era probably wouldn't sell very well.  So if BF1 is the standard we're to judge BF V by, well, that's setting the bar pretty low.  Is it historically inaccurate that EA has decided to make black or Asian or female characters so much more prevalent than they were?  I suppose it is, but surely if the game runs well and is fun to play then that is what is important.  I get that they're trying to make the game more inclusive and appeal to a wider audience and blah blah blah, and since it's a game and not an accurate simulation, I can deal with it petty issues like female characters.  There shouldn't be Tiger tanks at Narvik either, but there they are.

@energetic2Alloy

1) Japanese comming but not yet, only early europe and north africa war at start of Battlefield V.

2) In the Beta skin are imposed, when the game will be launch eachone can choose their skin (and probably less women).

3) Yes asian and other color people can be confusing because in WWII many were rejected or put into special regiments at a time where racism was fairly present. We will give more to the game than to the historical side for this third point. 🙂

While yes I do realize that many of the weapons in the game are very rare weapons ex. The heilregal in which so few were produced, that much isn’t known. But, those changes were made to improve game play. What I have listed has no effect on game play. Over all bf1 kept fairly historically accurate and to the political climate. I am not sure to how minorities were misrepresented. Understand, African “Americans” were uncommon during WW1 but, they still served under the us and France 

Haven't you answered your own question?  If these historically unrealistic characters have no effect on gameplay then why be concerned about them?  They make no sense to me, but I forgot about them once I started to play, it's not like they're game-breaking, at least to me.  As for misrepresented minorities in BF1, I saw or heard a lot of complaining about that, despite the fact that without the hundreds of thousands of troops from French colonies in Africa being used on the western front the French army would have broken by 1915--those troops would certainly have been considered black by most Europeans of the time, as would the Indian troops brought in for a time by the British.  Of course 350,000 black American soldiers served in Europe in WWI although most were kept out of combat roles as they would be in WWII.  Why EA feels they need to have an Asian female sniper character in the British army in a WWII game escapes me, but so long as the game runs well and is fun to play then it isn't going to bother me.  I'd be more concerned about misrepresenting the capabilities of vehicles, e.g. one hit from the 88 on that Tiger should turn a Valentine tank into scrap metal.  But it's a game rather than a simulation, so it seems like a Valentine can take as much punishment as a Tiger which has armor twice as thick, oh well.

1,347 were built between August 1942 and August 1944. After August 1944, production of the Tiger I was phased out in favour of the Tiger II.

So no Tiger on Rotterdam and Narvik.