Still don't like the name

[Damien Thorn]

This is a really minor thing but I don't like the name of this game. "The struggle against Japan" implies that the player will be playing the side of the allies. It also gives a "us vs them" feeling to it. I would prefer "The Struggle with Japan" if you have to have something like that.

Or hey, better yet, sell two version of the box. One can say the "...against Japan" bit and the other can say "...against the Western Powers". Make everyone happy.

As an American, I fell that in the historical context there was a good side and a bad side but this is a game and I don't think we should show one side as the good guys and one as the bad guys and the proposed title seems to suggest this.

[pad152]

Huh!, April 1st is still a couple of weeks away,[8|]

[redman1]

Perhaps it should read, "The disagreement allegedly pertaining to Japan in the Pacific". [8|]

Honestly, was there anyone else who provoked hostilities in the Pacific?

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: redman1
Honestly, was there anyone else who provoked hostilities in the Pacific?

I'm not saying that the Japanese didn't start the war. I'm saying that the title suggests that the player is somehow trying to STOP the Japanese "against Japan". Maybe we want to play the Japanese side and try to conquer the Pacific. The name is biased, plain and simple.

[mark24]

Why not "the struggle against America"? Or the "struggle against the west", or something?

The point was that there are two sides in this war, why is only one side being struggled against? Were we to quantify which side was struggling the most, WitP should be subtitled the struggle against the allies.

Not that I'll lose sleep over it, but I think Damien raised a fair point.

Mark

[redman1]

The name "Uncommon Valor" comes from a statement by Churchill referring to the U.S. Marines in the Pacific (it may have been Okinawa specifically IIRC) to the effect that, "Uncommon Valor was a common virtue." Isn't that biased insofar as it's a name derived from a compliment to American forces?

I think we've got better things to consider here.

[pasternakski]

I agree with Damien on this one, and raised the same argument so long ago that it might have been before I lost my virginity (okay, now I remember, that was just last week).

Why isn't "War in the Pacific" enough? Or "World War II in the Pacific"?

"The Struggle Against Japan," for my money, says that this game is for Allied fanboys who want to beat the Japs. I advocate deep-sixing it.

Of course, this would create a huge editing and graphics re-coding problem for the design team. Ho-hum. Wish they would have listened to me sooner...

(yeah, I know it ain't changing, but what else do I have to do with my time than make frivolous arguments? Play UV? Wait for UV-Med?)

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

ORIGINAL: redman1
Honestly, was there anyone else who provoked hostilities in the Pacific?

I'm not saying that the Japanese didn't start the war. I'm saying that the title suggests that the player is somehow trying to STOP the Japanese "against Japan". Maybe we want to play the Japanese side and try to conquer the Pacific. The name is biased, plain and simple.

It's because the "WAR IN THE PACIFIC' was the struggle between the Allies and Japan.
As you can tell from the print and language of the forum, the audience it's aimed at is
composed almost exclusively of people from the "Allied" nations. So the struggle against
Japan is a worthwhile qualifier.

As to your wish to "Conquer the Pacific as Japan, it's a piece of historical nonsense. The only hope Japan had was for Germany to "win" and pull her along. And by dragging the
US into the war, she pretty much insured that was a very faint hope. You have roman-
ticized the Japanese into some kind of valiant underdog (like the Confederacy of the
American Civil War) The face Japan was showing the world in the 30's and 40's was
that of a merciless conqueror---the "rape" of Nanking being only one of many examples.
These were not "the Good Guys".

[Drongo]

You blokes must really be bored.

[stljeffbb]

Politics does not matter for PacWar and I'm assuming it won't matter for WitP either. One can imagine any political scenario they choose, but this game is about one group of chess pieces against another. In some ways, it is like the Confederates vs. the Union in that the Confederates remained fairly static in their ability to wage war, and their best ability to wage war was most likely right at the start, just like the Japanese. The Union won because of industrial might, and so did the Allies.....but what if, say, the Japanese did not have the conflicts between Army and Navy and had a very unified command structure? Could they have taken Pearl? The U.S. troops on Pearl sure did expect an invasion. Adrimal Theobald expected an invasion of Dutch Harbor. Why not?

Not attempting to defend the Japanese for their real-life atrocities, what if history had given us a more benevolent Japan, truly interested in liberating a very much colonialized Pacific rim....the Japanese were very much seen as liberators at first. I know these are long shots, but still possible. America had just as much colonialism going on as the French, Dutch, British, etc. PacWar, and I'm assuming WitP, offers us this chance of political ambiguity, but gives us the pieces of the waring parties AFTER war has begun in the MINDS of the politicians (generals). The pieces are acting out their parts in this great Pacific play.

In some ways, Japan was trying to emulate the west by desiring colonies as well. Japan had set out to become as "Western" as possible since the 19th century. To wage war on this scale was merely the "Western" thing to do. Not that its right, of course.

Jeff

[Mike Scholl]

STLJEFFBB The game's editor promises you full reign in indulging all the fantasies
you want to come up with, I'll probably have a go at one or two myself. But the
Game itself is about the historical reality of 1941-1945---and there the Japanese
were hampered by all the problems that geography and their own culture and fool-
ishness had inflicted on them.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: redman1

The name "Uncommon Valor" comes from a statement by Churchill referring to the U.S. Marines in the Pacific (it may have been Okinawa specifically IIRC) to the effect that, "Uncommon Valor was a common virtue." Isn't that biased insofar as it's a name derived from a compliment to American forces?

I think we've got better things to consider here.

I thought it was after the battle of Iwo Jima, when Admiral Chester Nimitz - reviewing the casualties and courageous actions of the US forces on Iwo Jima - declared that at the battle for Iwo Jima, "uncommon valor was a common virtue."

Edit: Btw, I've brought up the issue of naming a game on the South / South-West Pacific Campaign in 1942/43 after a famous quote of a battle that took place in a different area and time frame on the UV forum a long time ago, when UV wasn't even published yet (IIRC). The answer I got from the Matrix was that in the South and that time, uncommon valor was a common virtue, too, and that they like the name and will stick to it.
Regarding WitP - as a 'historian', I have to agree that the sub-title 'struggle against Japan' is biased, apart from the fact that it doesn't make much sense in a game that allows to play the Japanese side... But I can live with that - gives me the opportunity to nit-pick... I need that, LOL! [;)]

[siRkid]

IMHO when it’s published in Japanese, it can be re-titled "Struggle against the Allies".

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

It's because the "WAR IN THE PACIFIC' was the struggle between the Allies and Japan.
As you can tell from the print and language of the forum, the audience it's aimed at is
composed almost exclusively of people from the "Allied" nations. So the struggle against
Japan is a worthwhile qualifier.

Like you said, it was the struggle between the allies and Japan. I'd be happy with that line instead of with Japan.
The audience might be people from English-speaking countries but since you can play either side it is silly to say "against" one of the sides when you might be PLAYING that side.

[stljeffbb]

Hey, I'm just looking forward to playing the game! Release......release.....RELEASE! [:D]

And I hope its not summer of 2005 like some are joking on another thread..... [>:]

....I'll take it now, and patch it later, and I'll be happy to pay my $69.99 to do it.

Jeff

[Zeta16]

This is the most worthless topic ever, who cares. It is just a game, not a place to show PC you are.

[redman1]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: redman1

The name "Uncommon Valor" comes from a statement by Churchill referring to the U.S. Marines in the Pacific (it may have been Okinawa specifically IIRC) to the effect that, "Uncommon Valor was a common virtue." Isn't that biased insofar as it's a name derived from a compliment to American forces?

I think we've got better things to consider here.

I thought it was after the battle of Iwo Jima, when Admiral Chester Nimitz - reviewing the casualties and courageous actions of the US forces on Iwo Jima - declared that at the battle for Iwo Jima, "uncommon valor was a common virtue."

You're correct. I looked it up. It certainly sounds Churchillian though! [:)]

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

This is the most worthless topic ever, who cares. It is just a game, not a place to show PC you are.

Aghh! I'm most definately not PC. He11, I'm not even a Democrat. There is a difference between being "PC" and being accurate. I just think it sounds weird to have "against Japan" in a game where half the people will be playing the Japanese side.

[HMSWarspite]

Call yourselves Pedants? I've seen more pedantic things in my bath! It's not the "War in the Pacific"! It's the "War in the Pacific, South China Sea, Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, and parts of the Indian Ocean, with associated adjacent land masses". As for the stuggle bit, how's about "the struggle between the Western Allies including the British Empire and Commonwealth, China, the colonial forces of Nazi occupied Europe, and certain indiginous Asian peoples against the unelected militarist facist dictatorship imposed over the innocent and peacefull Japanese people"
[>:]

It's a name people. Squad Leader wasn't just about Corporals![:D][:D][:D]

I guess this is nature's way of asking when the release is!

[Mark VII]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

It's not the "War in the Pacific"! It's the "War in the Pacific, South China Sea, Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, and parts of the Indian Ocean, with associated adjacent land masses". As for the stuggle bit, how's about "the struggle between the Western Allies including the British Empire and Commonwealth, China, the colonial forces of Nazi occupied Europe, and certain indiginous Asian peoples against the unelected militarist facist dictatorship imposed over the innocent and peacefull Japanese people"
[>:]

It's a name people. Squad Leader wasn't just about Corporals![:D][:D][:D]

Warspite, you have the right idea but that is alittle long and maybe difficult to market. For those of us in North America or Europe, the name could be "War on the other side of the Planet". For you Aussies and Kiwi's, the name could be "The War in Our Front Yard".

Damien; you have a point but its not worth all of this! I think there are other far more important issues like, how many A/C sorties can Akagi or Enterprise support before rearming at a port under the new supply rules?

Oh yea, another question, when is the release of "the struggle between the Western Allies including the British Empire and Commonwealth, China, the colonial forces of Nazi occupied Europe, and certain indiginous Asian peoples against the unelected militarist facist dictatorship imposed over the innocent and peacefull Japanese people"?

Just kidding, I know that, sometime this summer.