Login

russian armor

Omega's Japanese Faction

PAGES (7)down
11 May 2014, 04:47 AM
#81
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2

Japanese is tough to do. The Soviets completely annihilated them in what is perhaps the greatest and most lopsided victory of WW2: the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, operation August Storm. The lost of the Manchurian armies and the atom bombs put Japan on the Surrender table.



Yes, but this was after the Japanese had been bled white to reinforce the armies elsewhere and starved of supply and the Soviets had redeployed the Armies from Western Europe.


One of these is at the very top of their game, and the other at the very bottom.


If you assume an alt-hist where the Japanese join Barbarossa rather than striking South it will be more even.
11 May 2014, 04:53 AM
#82
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

1939: The Japanese were dramatically defeated by Soviet armor formations and deployments. This effectively reduced their strategic desire to attack the SU zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

The biggest problem with the Japanese ground force was the lack of modern armored doctrine and armored forces. They were behind in ground fighting in open territories against western forces.

The Soviets were indeed at their very best in August Storm. Their performance was superb.
11 May 2014, 05:52 AM
#83
avatar of S73v0

Posts: 522

Imo a lot of people here are seriously underestimating Japanese viability as a faction. Sure the Japanese don't have any amazing super famous tanks like the Panther or Tiger mainly because why would they need one in the Pacific war? Those tanks would be useless in the jungles of the Pacific island campaigns, and would be overkill against the light and medium tanks they were facing. Their infantry tactics and training allowed them to overwhelm massive armies and garrisons 2-3 times the size of their own.

Sure in coh2 they would have nothing to counter the ISU-152 or KV-8. But that might be a coh2 design problem. Right now these tanks can be super OP, wiping out full-health squads in one shot. Only my last 3v3 I played I just saved up my resources and called in 3 ISU-152s and spammed my way to victory. These kind of strategies goes against the spirit of coh and I think Relic will nerf them so we don't have the team lategame meta revolving around these supertanks.

I might be the only who wishes for a different setting of WW2 in coh, especially since we are going back to a setting that was already done. But choosing to ignore the pacific campaign or far east war, which was fought since 1937, 2 years before the war in Europe started and ended a few months later than VE day, I think this is a worthy setting for an expansion.

On topic:
I really like a lot of the ideas, great work :thumb: Someone just needs to make a mod and do some balance testing :)
11 May 2014, 08:10 AM
#84
avatar of Captain_Frog

Posts: 248

Omega that was a joy to read.

I would honestly go out and buy the Pacific expansion if they did it like your ideas here.

It would be great if you could do the USMC or a different allied faction to compliment the Japanese.
11 May 2014, 09:03 AM
#85
avatar of Brick Top

Posts: 1162

Well thought out.


For me, the pacific front would be an opportunity to replace tanks with naval combat, have half the map being water, armies include gun boats and landing crafts and the armies fight over a few islands.

This of course would be brand new territory and really difficult to make work well in coh style. But this is what I would dream it as. Would probably be coh3.

I suppose the conclusion of the pacific front is a bit less heroic, but I'm sure it could be done in good taste.
11 May 2014, 11:55 AM
#86
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

japan would not fit with the current factions.
An m4 sherman would be the equivalent of a tiger ace to the japanese.

That said, if you can make another american faction which only fight japan , where tanks like the stuart are expensive late game tanks and m4 sherman is like the tiger ace, then it could work.


If say a japan expasnion would be added, then, infantry play would mean 90% of all gameplay.

11 May 2014, 13:30 PM
#87
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6

many people believe that tanks won WW2 am i right? well, thats a big surprise, they didn't. I doubt the Japs had any problems to destroy a simple Sherman, it's just he Japs tank shouldn't fight with them and infantry should do their job.

11 May 2014, 13:47 PM
#88
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

many people believe that tanks won WW2 am i right? well, thats a big surprise, they didn't. I doubt the Japs had any problems to destroy a simple Sherman, it's just he Japs tank shouldn't fight with them and infantry should do their job.



pure bullshit. All ww2 thinking was based around tanks and air support.

That's the same as saying.

Many people believe that guns win wars. Well, they didin't. I doubt the aztecs had problems to defeat a simple spanish group with guns with their clubs.
11 May 2014, 13:53 PM
#89
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578

many people believe that tanks won WW2 am i right? well, thats a big surprise, they didn't.

Really? Great! If this is true then relic can now remove all tanks from CoH2.No more P4, T-34, IS-2 or Tiger anymore, just only infantry from now on.Then relic can add Japan as a new infantry faction.

Artillery also didn t won WW2 they can also be completely removed from the game.:S

I doubt the Japs had any problems to destroy a simple Sherman

They had. Believe me they had......Tank warfare was completely new and a shock for the japanese army in 1944-1945 when the Island campaigns begun and they first meet a sherman tank on the battlefield. Thats why they never really developed anti-tank weapons to fight against tanks.
11 May 2014, 18:21 PM
#90
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post11 May 2014, 13:47 PMBurts


pure bullshit. All ww2 thinking was based around tanks and air support.

That's the same as saying.

Many people believe that guns win wars. Well, they didin't. I doubt the aztecs had problems to defeat a simple spanish group with guns with their clubs.


most likely around air support, tanks were easy targets for bombers, Stukas gave victory for Germans against France where their tanks couldnt do anything against those, later the Mericans and british air support were destroying german tank divisions so as it was on eastern front, first luftwaffe did a good job but when soviets rebuilded their air forces, they dominated battlefields.

Tanks were only good vs pure infantry with no AT weaponry and when enemy had no air support nearby
11 May 2014, 18:33 PM
#91
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702



most likely around air support, tanks were easy targets for bombers, Stukas gave victory for Germans against France where their tanks couldnt do anything against those, later the Mericans and british air support were destroying german tank divisions so as it was on eastern front, first luftwaffe did a good job but when soviets rebuilded their air forces, they dominated battlefields.

Tanks were only good vs pure infantry with no AT weaponry and when enemy had no air support nearby



So why did all assaults in WW2 pretty much happen with tanks? There was no major operation in the eastern front/western front without any tanks...
Are you saying at weaponry is superior to tanks? Wut?
Without the t-34/76 operation uranus would never have suceeded.
Without tanks, we would have ww1..



If the tanks succeed, then victory follows.

Heinz Guderian


I think he had more understanding of millitary thinking than any of us here..
11 May 2014, 19:13 PM
#92
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578

jump backJump back to quoted post11 May 2014, 18:33 PMBurts


If the tanks succeed, then victory follows.

Heinz Guderian


I think he had more understanding of millitary thinking than any of us here..

Guderian was just a cheater and bug user.......
If Barton were in Command of the German WW2 Army he would attacked all enemy tanks with only infantry and Germany would have easily won WW2.
11 May 2014, 20:07 PM
#93
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

I also want to mention; Kamikaze was never used against land targets, it was purely a Naval Weapon. They were used against Ships, Carriers, and sometimes Landing Craft.
11 May 2014, 21:33 PM
#94
avatar of MarcoRossolini

Posts: 1042

And the V1 was never used for tactical purposes in VCoH...
11 May 2014, 22:15 PM
#95
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

Yeah I though putting the Kamakazi in was stupid at first too, but after I read about the OHKA which was basically a manually driven missile, I thought it was too cool not to put in, but yes I know it was mostly used against ships.
11 May 2014, 22:27 PM
#96
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post11 May 2014, 19:13 PMAffe

Guderian was just a cheater and bug user.......
If Barton were in Command of the German WW2 Army he would attacked all enemy tanks with only infantry and Germany would have easily won WW2.


you should better learn more about military warfare instead of posting crap like that
11 May 2014, 23:37 PM
#97
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

Screw your tanks and infantry, artillery accounted for 70% of deaths in WW2. Ill take that over tank and infantry any day.
12 May 2014, 05:44 AM
#98
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026



most likely around air support, tanks were easy targets for bombers, Stukas gave victory for Germans against France where their tanks couldnt do anything against those, later the Mericans and british air support were destroying german tank divisions so as it was on eastern front, first luftwaffe did a good job but when soviets rebuilded their air forces, they dominated battlefields.

Tanks were only good vs pure infantry with no AT weaponry and when enemy had no air support nearby



Victory against France, like victory against any large country in WWII, was achieved by all things in combination. But you are seriously downplaying the importance of armor. Without their large, concentrated armored formations to punch through the lines and *extremely rapidly* close to the channel, the victory against France would not have been possible. They are powerful, fast and tough, and they are they were of extreme importance to the war effort. Nobody is taking this straw-man position that Tanks, alone, are the only important thing, or that they did not require any support.
12 May 2014, 06:04 AM
#99
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578



you should better learn more about military warfare instead of posting crap like that

I am not the one who wants to fight with japanese Infantry against ISU-152, KV-8 and IS-2.:)
12 May 2014, 07:51 AM
#100
avatar of MarcoRossolini

Posts: 1042

^^

Challenge accepted... Anyway, this lunge mine thing should do the trick if nothing else...
PAGES (7)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

547 users are online: 547 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49115
Welcome our newest member, Pound309
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM