Login

russian armor

Relic: No Japanese faction in CoH2

1 Apr 2015, 07:46 AM
#61
avatar of Kothre

Posts: 419

I can feel my heartstrings tearing. Why u do this to me, Relic? Also, as far as I'm concerned, Japs is just short for Japanese. I don't see what the big deal is. You'd never hear me cry racism because someone called me a Yankee.
1 Apr 2015, 07:47 AM
#62
avatar of leungkevin24

Posts: 61

No. Japs are Japs. They are japs
1 Apr 2015, 12:47 PM
#63
avatar of Sturmführer Stalin
Donator 22

Posts: 65



'Jude/Jew' is just a term for a person of a certain religion, like "Christian".



Speaking for that time this is not true! Many of the so called jews werent religious. At least not the "jewish way". They were just relatives and were killed because the great great grandfather had 1 of 5 children with a jewish woman.(exagerated but I think you get my point)

Yes its true its not an abbreviation but thats not the point. The point is that some use it as slur others consider it a normal word for a certain person. Like jap. :)
1 Apr 2015, 17:21 PM
#64
avatar of lDaveTankl

Posts: 173

It's pretty fascinating to see how split the community is about this issue.

It isn't so much the word that is the issue but instead the history and imagery that word conjures up. The United States waged massive and extremely effective propaganda war aimed at dehumanizing the Japanese during WWII and in all those posters, movie reels, etc. the Japanese were referred to as either "Japs" or "Nips". The propaganda was so enduring that those originally neutral words became permanently associated with the derogatory and dehumanizing imagery of that era in countries that fought in the Pacific War.

When you say "Jap" a person whose country was not exposed to that propaganda they might picture something like this:



But when you say "Jap" to an American you are conjuring up images and negativity like this:



While "Jap" may have been a neutral term at first it became a derogatory slur in the US and other countries that fought in the Pacific largely due to it's association with the dehumanizing propaganda of the era. A person not exposed to that shared cultural history would have a very different understanding of the word than one who was.


Yep. Same thing in Australia.
2 Apr 2015, 03:59 AM
#65
avatar of BabaRoga

Posts: 829



Thank you :)

I am not Australian.

EDIT: Why would "Jap" be a racial slur in Australia?



In Australia it's inappropriate to say that: 'Asian guy', 'Arab girl', 'Pommy girl', etc. which are all less of a derogatory term than 'Jap'.

P.S. It's the same in Britain, you probably didn't get the memo on political correctness.


Why? Because being a ragging lunatic and having campaign to remove some director/politician for saying 'Asian guy', will get you support of media.
While questioning sanity of entire argument will make you public enemy no.1
No one wants to be public enemy no.1 hence you cannot say 'Jap' or 'Asian guy', etc
2 Apr 2015, 04:51 AM
#66
avatar of tofu

Posts: 89 | Subs: 1

As one of the Japanese,the word "Jap" makes me a little unpleasant feeling.

But I know this feeling is from a cultural background,which Cabreza explains very well(addition:it's a good job to share kawaii girl's pic with us).

And I also know people using "Jap" don't have that background,just shorten word "Japan".

After all,the word itself doesn't have the meaning,every person has it.
2 Apr 2015, 08:55 AM
#67
avatar of Carronade

Posts: 48



Speaking for that time this is not true! Many of the so called jews werent religious. At least not the "jewish way". They were just relatives and were killed because the great great grandfather had 1 of 5 children with a jewish woman.(exagerated but I think you get my point)

Yes its true its not an abbreviation but thats not the point. The point is that some use it as slur others consider it a normal word for a certain person. Like jap. :)


Agreed! That way it makes sense. :)
3 Apr 2015, 01:18 AM
#68
avatar of wolfram

Posts: 20

Japs could of been a really interesting and unique faction.

The japanese would of had a really interesting, cheap but shitty light tank as the ha-go, and other prototypes for vehicles.

Very unique infantry, and no they are not the same as conscripts.
3 Apr 2015, 05:26 AM
#69
avatar of wolfram

Posts: 20

The japs wouldnt be a good addition to the coh2 for several reasons: they were completly different from the four other factions (few combined arms, heavy usage of ambush taktiks, suicide attack, etc). The military focus was more on navy battles than on big armoured vehicle assaults(although I want to see the yamato cruisin around in the volga :D ). They were experts in jungle skirmisches, camoflaging in bushes or surprise attacks, but they would lack in tanks for european battlefields. I can imagine them being an excellent and fun-to-play-faction that I'd actually love to see in action but they dont fit into coh2.maybe in a fourth coh or a seperate multiplayer.

I dont think jap is racist. Some people might think its racist because its a bit sloppy probably overused. Its like "jude"(jew) in germany, many people think its racist but it actually depends on the context, could be said in a humiliating way or in a friendly/funny/normal/shortend/whatever way, the situation makes it racist. :)


There has already been a whole japanese roster + commanders drawn up - we don't have to include naval to have the japanese.
3 Apr 2015, 08:36 AM
#70
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Nah, you just need a lot of historical fiction to make them work.
3 Apr 2015, 12:05 PM
#71
avatar of Shang

Posts: 31

Nah, you just need a lot of historical fiction to make them work.


Do you mean like American fighting at Moscow or Russians in France?
3 Apr 2015, 13:02 PM
#72
avatar of Immoraliste

Posts: 45

On abbreviations being innocuous, try calling someone of south Asian descent a 'paki' in the UK. You'll be arrested and charged with inciting racial hatred faster than you can say the word.

At the same time, it's my understanding that in other countries (in S Asia, and places in the Middle East) the term 'pak' is used to refer to the country, and people, without negative connotation.
3 Apr 2015, 19:51 PM
#73
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Apr 2015, 12:05 PMShang
Do you mean like American fighting at Moscow or Russians in France?


No I'm talking about units and design, not maps. I mean like Maus vs IS-3, or Panther II vs T-44, or maybe even E-25 vs T-55, that kind of fiction. Because Japans best Medium Tank was intended to counter the 75mm M4A3 Sherman, and it wasn't even superior to it. You'd need a lot of conjecture in order to make them competitive with the likes of the Soviet Army with their T-34/85's and IS-2's, or USF with their M4A3E8's.
4 Apr 2015, 23:17 PM
#74
avatar of Shang

Posts: 31



No I'm talking about units and design, not maps. I mean like Maus vs IS-3, or Panther II vs T-44, or maybe even E-25 vs T-55, that kind of fiction. Because Japans best Medium Tank was intended to counter the 75mm M4A3 Sherman, and it wasn't even superior to it. You'd need a lot of conjecture in order to make them competitive with the likes of the Soviet Army with their T-34/85's and IS-2's, or USF with their M4A3E8's.


Implying that current unit designs are realistic and not fictional?
4 Apr 2015, 23:29 PM
#75
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Apr 2015, 23:17 PMShang
Implying that current unit designs are realistic and not fictional?


That's a fallacy, you could use that logic to argue for the inclusion of anything. For example, CoH2 isn't realistic, and Space Marines aren't realistic, so lets add Space Marines. Of course that doesn't make Space Marines any more fitting in CoH2's atmosphere or gameplay.
4 Apr 2015, 23:33 PM
#76
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561



That's a fallacy, you could use that logic to argue for the inclusion of anything. For example, CoH2 isn't realistic, and Space Marines aren't realistic, so lets add Space Marines. Of course that doesn't make Space Marines any more fitting in CoH2's atmosphere or gameplay.
Space marines didn't participate in WW2. Japan did.
4 Apr 2015, 23:48 PM
#77
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Space marines didn't participate in WW2. Japan did.


But not in the way people want them implemented. Japan was primarily a Naval and Air power. As far as armoured warfare, which Company of Heroes focuses on heavily, they would be worthless. Light Tanks were the mainstay of their armoured forces. Their land-based combat was based around extreme defense utilizing trenches, tunnels, bunkers, landmines, and boobytraps all set up before the enemy's arrival. That assumes they'd have half the map before you exit your base, or they'd be able to construct it rapidly with any infantry unit. That's not fun to play against, and coupled with the offensive capability of Wehrmacht or OKW would be wildly overpowered. Yet in a more conventional design, they struggle against even basic medium tanks, let alone upper-tier tanks like the Easy Eight or T-34/85. And fighting the IS-2 would be like trying to kill a Tiger with T-70's.

In short, you'd have to heavily fictionalise aspects of the Japanese Army in order to make them fun and effective against the current Allied armies.
5 Apr 2015, 00:09 AM
#78
avatar of Shang

Posts: 31



But not in the way people want them implemented. Japan was primarily a Naval and Air power. As far as armoured warfare, which Company of Heroes focuses on heavily, they would be worthless. Light Tanks were the mainstay of their armoured forces. Their land-based combat was based around extreme defense utilizing trenches, tunnels, bunkers, landmines, and boobytraps all set up before the enemy's arrival. That assumes they'd have half the map before you exit your base, or they'd be able to construct it rapidly with any infantry unit. That's not fun to play against, and coupled with the offensive capability of Wehrmacht or OKW would be wildly overpowered. Yet in a more conventional design, they struggle against even basic medium tanks, let alone upper-tier tanks like the Easy Eight or T-34/85. And fighting the IS-2 would be like trying to kill a Tiger with T-70's.

In short, you'd have to heavily fictionalise aspects of the Japanese Army in order to make them fun and effective against the current Allied armies.


I'm sorry but you're just wrong. Armored forces was virtually non-existent in IJA, what armor they had was used as infantry support, their land based combat was based around en massed infantry shock attacks grinding into attrition warfare if swift victory wasn't achieved. Their extreme defense as you suggested was a product of late war ad-hoc desperation initative rather than a regular military doctrine.

You have funny double standarts complaining about issue of realism in regard of building defenses when Germans players can build bunkers or Pak 43s in 10 seconds. Same with your complaint about realism of tanks, when US factions has no heavy tanks, and allies need to call in even the most commonly produced Shermans/T34s.
5 Apr 2015, 00:34 AM
#79
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Apr 2015, 00:09 AMShang
I'm sorry but you're just wrong. Armored forces was virtually non-existent in IJA, what armor they had was used as infantry support, their land based combat was based around en massed infantry shock attacks grinding into attrition warfare if swift victory wasn't achieved. Their extreme defense as you suggested was a product of late war ad-hoc desperation initative rather than a regular military doctrine.

You have funny double standarts complaining about issue of realism in regard of building defenses when Germans players can build bunkers or Pak 43s in 10 seconds. Same with your complaint about realism of tanks, when US factions has no heavy tanks, and allies need to call in even the most commonly produced Shermans/T34s.


You're really not helping your own argument by admitting the IJA was hugely inept when it came to armoured combat. And Ostheer have a buildable bunker, as do US Forces, but their entire faction designs aren't dependent on building fortresses. And yes the US Forces have no Heavy Tank, but they have decent Medium Tanks and Tank Destroyers. A Japanese Faction would be lacking both of these things. The British in CoH1 were a defensive faction, and everybody hated that. Remove the tanks (except Stuart and Tetrarch) and slap a Japanese flag on it though and suddenly it's in high demand? I don't understand the appeal.
5 Apr 2015, 02:39 AM
#80
avatar of Shang

Posts: 31



You're really not helping your own argument by admitting the IJA was hugely inept when it came to armoured combat. And Ostheer have a buildable bunker, as do US Forces, but their entire faction designs aren't dependent on building fortresses. And yes the US Forces have no Heavy Tank, but they have decent Medium Tanks and Tank Destroyers. A Japanese Faction would be lacking both of these things. The British in CoH1 were a defensive faction, and everybody hated that. Remove the tanks (except Stuart and Tetrarch) and slap a Japanese flag on it though and suddenly it's in high demand? I don't understand the appeal.


So suddenly from all the realism, design, doctrinal style etc.. reasons it comes down to the only argument that they just don't appeal to you.

Hurr durr Japs can't be in game because I don't like the way I IMAGINE they will be implement.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag Oziligath
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Sidewinder
uploaded by Oziligath

Board Info

281 users are online: 4 members and 277 guests
ZaneyZap, Crecer13, SkysTheLimit, Willy Pete
54 posts in the last 24h
229 posts in the last week
844 posts in the last month
Registered members: 33228
Welcome our newest member, Ardiontrkis
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM