I think the point is, they aren’t stating that woman were the prominent force on the battlefield, but rather they served in a capacity that however minor is still worth depicting. Minor does not equate to non existent. So the developers have their creative freedom/license to depict stories/gameplay in a setting of their choosing. There’s a line of course between respectful and disrespectful, and I think if they felt they were crossing the line they’d depict this in an alternate setting and push the creative boundaries even further (such as Wolfenstein with it’s ‘what if’ scenario).
If DICE showcases some of the stories through the perspective of a female soldier/combatant, then this is certainly not pandering (if however they do nothing beyond having female avatars) I’ll shake my head at the missed opportunity.
I do understand where you’re coming from in the sense that it’s dangerous territory to alter history – if what they are showing happens to be highly inaccurate. It’s up to them to find the balance between allowing themselves to showcase potential scenarios soldiers faced (woman and men) and ensuring they don’t throw in cyborgs (the claw hand is probably the only thing I raised an eyebrow at).
Part of me thinks it would’ve been cool if they fused WW2 with Steampunk, but if DICE is sticking to their guns on this – I have a feeling they’ve got some strong narrative choices in mind.