Any comments on the newly announced Battlefield V ???

The trailer looked good, but wow talk about sensory overload. Plus where are you going to get a hand-to-hand/jeep/tank/aircraft/V-1 battle all going inside a stadium-sized area?

Expectations created by trailer X gameplay reality

This minimal info announcements are somewhat interesting, but in general, useless. They're deliberately vague. I will until EA Play or E3 events to see what it's like. Real multiplayer rather than some hacked together scenes to bring the hype. However, it's good to hear that additional maps will not be behind DLC walls. The community always get split. Hopefully we will get a good amount of post launch content, if there's no obvious revenue generation, other than skins/cosmetics.

Just one look at the trailer tells me all I want to know... more of the same 'run and gun' bollox!
More of the incorrect crazy uniforms and scenarios.
I used to enjoy online playing online war games, but it's just more of the same stuff, rehashed... I just don't know why developers keep treading this same corny old path.
For the love of god, please give us something else!

Seeing as Battlefield 5 seems to be doing to WWII the same thing Battlefield 1 did to World War I (rewrite history to insert women and ethnic minorities into ahistorically prominent roles so the game fits in to the "inclusive"/"woke"/whatever foolishness that most of the entertainment media has been pushing the last few years, then fill in the rest of the game with over top "Inglorious Bastards"/Michael Bay type nonsense they think will attract the CoD:AW and GTA V crowds), I will pass. And before anybody says "Battlefield" has never been historically accurate, sure I understand that. But it used to present historically thematic gameplay, so that Battlefield 1942 could make you feel like you were playing a John Wayne movie, or that you were reenacting a firefight from Blackhawk Down in Battlefield 2. Now, the Battlefield games seem more interested in presenting their own alternate reality/fantasy version of historical conflicts. If, as the producers say, this trend of promoting women in combat in an anti-historical fashion, and generally fantasizing history, is here to stay, then my money will continue to stay out [of Battlefield].

I don't feel that way at all. I feel like the stories of women and minorities have for so long gone under-represented. This is a turn for the better, if at the very least it invokes curiosity, in those playing, to learn more about the many diverse and various roles woman took during times of conflict.

And how many women were in the first wave at Omaha beach?
How many women took part in the fighting on operation Torch?
I could go on, and as much as I think that women 'today' should be equal to men, in the past they were not, and that is just how it was back then.
As to diverse roles that women took during WWII, the vast majority were certainly not in combat roles, apart from some units on the Eastern Front.

How many women were in the resistance fighting Nazi occupational forces in France that assisted in the landings?

How many women were spies working in north Africa passing information and setting the stage?

Resistance, spies passing info, dangerous stuff... but you are missing the point, on purpose I suspect.
Women will be portrayed taking an active combat role in infantry attacks in game... just didn't happen in western forces.

Actually, no, they have not been "underrepresented." As far as women in combat goes, they have been represented accurately by their absence. Women played virtually no role in the combat forces of any organized military of any nation or power in western history until the last decade or two. The handful of exceptions (such as women masquerading as men, or, more notably, a couple of Soviet female units) were notable for being curiosities. Pretending that women had any role in in the combat forces of the Western or Axis militaries (or any significant role in the Soviet forces) in World War II is pure politically-inspired fantasy.

I guess, though, since most of the rest of the trailer is also pretty much Inglorious Bastards-style fantasy, I should not be that surprised. Like I said, if this is the direction EA is going with Battlefield, I have no interest.

They should had added woman in bf4, they really droped the ball there, specially since they were requested by fans during bf3. i honestly dont see why eveyone is #%&*$# about a woman featuring heavily during advertise, americans are really vocal against minorites, bf1 got the same flak for using a black guy and mafia 3 got slammed for not being enough mafia becouse you play a black guy....honestly mafia 3 is the most mafia game after the first one.
My only problem with bfv so far is why is a disabled person fighting ?

I don't have a problem with that. Douglas Bader and Hans-Ulrich Rudel were both very successful as combat pilots.

It seems to me that EA are trying to appeal to the SJW types. I was half expecting to see a tank in 'gay pride' colours.

If they wanted to do some sort of Elite Soldiers type of thing, there were other ways to do it. They could have done SAS, U.S Rangers, German SS Paratroopers. You could pick one of those in game and go to it. A woman? Okay....how about a French or Norwegian resistance fighter. And give her two arms and lose the Indian war paint, for Pete's sake. Geez. It's 1944 and she looks like a cyborg.

Looks good.

Here's some multiplayer action.

WHAT.. DA F***

Honestly, if anyone was expecting Battlefield to be an historically realistic representations of combat they were always going to be disappointed. The very first Battlefield, 1942, was already the A-Team goes to WW2 with crazy jeep and planes stunts being highlights. So Battlefield V being yet another sort of fantasy version of wwii makes sense. I'm fine with this. I've got other milsims to play when I want to immerse myself in historical realism.

Talk about full circle...

I loved BF 1942... there was just nothing like it at the time.