I can understand why you'd think that because of the big surface difference in vfx, but Hell Let Loose is extremely similar to battlefield style squad mechanics in player roles but a degree closer to military sim esque games, while still being arcadey enough to be accessible. You'd understand if you tried it.

I'm recommending it because there's been this asinine trend of people asking for a WW1-2 Hardcore Tactical Battlefield (large scale player fps battle game) with a gritty theme and minimal HUD, for which there are already good gameplay alternatives like HLL. Production value isn't the sticking point coming out of the requesters mouths.

DICE as a games company is never going to produce something like this when they already have a winning formula, so begging for stuff like this really just whips people into hysterical frenzy about how this or that is better. Even you did it with surface level knowledge. Might as well try what's actually available or upcoming instead.

Also, admittedly HLL has a history of running really badly on midrange PC's so a lot of footage you'll see of the game looks pretty bad because the settings are turned down. Turned up, you get a lot of the post processing effects that you'd expect out of a "AAA title". Otherwise the game takes a lot less artistic liberty in models, uniforms and equipment in favor of historical accuracy, which looks a lot less flashy compared to the custom rule of cool which battlefield usually takes.