I’ve looked at the latest version of the list, and most of the titles and concepts look fine. The new “Code of Bushido” title for enhanced island defense is a good choice because it’s distinctly Japanese and because it highlights the overall death-before-surrender philosophy that powered Japanese resistance rather than just the narrower concept of “Dug-In Defenders” (which is potentially applicable to most armies, since a soldier’s best friend on the battlefield is often his shovel rather than his rifle). I also like “Tankograd”, which nicely exemplifies the Soviet war industry, focuses on the all-important element of tank production, and is better known than Magnitogorsk.
“Civilian Labour” is a tricky one, in the sense that it’s an imperfect term for which the alternatives are even more problematic. Every country had civilian labour, in both peacetime and wartime; what changed in WWII is that many countries mobilized labour on a vast scale (including the recruitment of great numbers of women) and converted much of their industrial capacity from the production of consumer goods to the production of war materials. Expressing this in just a couple words applicable to all countries, however, isn’t easy. “Rosie the Riveter” was a tempting choice, but it’s too American and too focused on the specific element of female industrial employment. (And as the aforementioned Richard Overy pointed out, “Wanda the Welder” would have been a more accurate phrase in view of changing production methods.) So I don’t know what might work better. “Civilian Mobilization” would be one possibility, and “Home Front” is another, but neither term sounds precisely right.
I have two comments about this one: “Boeing Fortresses: When American strategic bombers attack weather in a battle or SBR, they now receive 2 dice each and the player may select the best result. Also, American strategic bombers now hit at 2 or less when defending against interceptors, and are now immune to built in AA fire around facilities during SBRs.” First, it sounds like four added advantages rather than one, which seems a bit generous. Second, I get the impression that the term “Boeing Fortresses” tries to reconcile the Round-the-clock-bombing concept (centered on the B-17) with the Super-bombers concept (which is understood to mean the advanced, pressurized, high-altitude, large-capacity, long-range, remotely-operated-gun-turret B-29, since the B-17 was quite conventional by comparison). I don’t know what to recommend for this one, since the optimal title will depend on what capabilities the title is meant to represent.
“Kaiten Torpedos” is problematic because the bonus described applies to all Japanese subs in all Japanese-controlled territories, whereas the Kaiten was in fact a suicide torpedo/mini-sub that was used when Japan was on its last legs. A better (but not optimal) title would be “Long Lance” (or “Long Lance Torpedo”), since this oxygen-fuelled weapon – its Japanese designation was the Type 93 – was the best heavyweight torpedo in the world and thus a genuine Japanese advantage. The two problems, however, are that it was already in service when WWII started, and that it wasn’t limited to subs: it was also carried by destroyers and cruisers, as I recall. So here too, I don’t have a clear-cut solution to propose.
I’d propose changing “Shipyard Engineers” to “Shipyard Improvements”. All shipyards have engineers, so “Shipyard Engineers” would be vague in terms of what it conveys. “Shipyard Improvements” implies enhancement, and is also sufficiently general that it would be applicable to most countries. The US, for example, adopted ship prefabrication techniques on a scale that nobody else matched, but several countries (including Japan) eventually made the sensible decision to build simplified ship designs in some cases (notably transport ships and escort vessels), and also switched from riveting to welding (which had the added advantage of saving weight in the finished product).
