Headscratchers / Battlefield 1

• So, why Battlefield 1 and not Battlefield 1914?
  • To show that this is the beginning of warfare in the modern age.
  • Not to mention that there was a WWI mod for Battlefield 1942 called Battlefield 1918. Possibly to avoid confusion, maybe?
• Weapon problems:
  • Why isn't the M1897 Shotgun reloaded properly from empty? (i.e. loading a round directly into the breech, then filling up the tube magazine, as opposed to simply filling up the tube and pumping) Ever since Battlefield 3, the shotguns were always reloaded properly, and even in Battlefield 1, the Browning Auto-5 and Sjögren Inertia are reloaded properly. The Model 10-A can be excused due to it's under-sided ejection port, but the M1897 has no logical excuse. I may sound hypocritical, but the Battlefield series (at least since 3) is usually more realistic than other First Person Shooters, so why is this?
    • This is likely a compromise the developers had to make to offset the M1897's slam-fire capabilities. If it had a shell loaded into the chamber first, it would mean players can run around with a partially loaded shotgun and shred their enemies with little risk of being caught empty.
  • Continuing the topic of Battlefield being more realistic than most other shooters, how come the MP-18 is held by its magazine? Surely even the Germans should realize that's a surefire way to make the gun jam.
    • This is, surprisingly, historically accurate. I was surprised to even find an example of the gun being operated this way, but some soldiers did indeed hold the MP-18 like this. Check it out.◊
    • There's also a difference between holding the magazine and the magazine well, like the player characters are in-game. Holding the magazine itself increases the likelihood of a jam, but holding the magazine well doesn't, since it's a solid part of the receiver that isn't as prone to warping or bending.
• As You Know, whenever an operation is finished, the narrator gives insight of the result of the operation, even going into detail of what might have happened if the other side won. One Alternate History opportunity I think they should have prepared for, however, is for the Kaiserschlacht campaign. The opportunity is not the Germans managing to take Amiens, but rather the possibility of the British managing to stop the Germans at St. Quentin Scar. Note that if the Germans win at St. Quentin Scar, the narrator states, quote en quote;
  The initial attacks in the Kaiserschlacht campaign successfully broke through the British lines, forcing it's armies back towards the city of Amiens.
  • (It's "Quote, unquote", not "quote en quote" and you don't need to say that because you're writing, not speaking. That's quite an amusing Eggcorn though.)
  • Now, let's assume that the British manage to hold off all the German battalions at St. Quentin Scar. That most likely means that the British lines aren't breached, and the Kaiserschlacht campaign fails even more so than it did in real life, with the Germans not only taking just as many casualties as they did in real life (if not potentially taking even more, while inversely inflicting fewer Allied casualties), but also failing to even reach Amiens. Surely that would change history just as much as a full blown German victory.