[Robotic Pope]

Exactly. The people who see the problem of the title are not unhappy because they just think it sounds bad. These are the people who are thinking not just for themselves but for others and the future. The people who don't see a problem are the ones that think "Its not a problem for me, I know its a new game and I'm buying whatever, If you don't like it don't buy it" this is a selfish way of thinking.

The fact is the the majority of people who may be inclined to buy this game will not know anything like as much as most people on this forum. Someone may see IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of dover on a shop shelf and say to themselves "wow is that old game still going? are they still making updates?, anyway I think I'd rather get something a bit newer"

Storm of war: Cliffs of dover, is too clunky and as someone else mentioned there are too many ...... of ...... titled games. It would also need a sticker saying from the makers of Il-2, which isn't ideal.

I suggested Sturmovik 2: Cliffs of dover,would have been better because it is clearly shows it is a new game and of the IL-2 series. Just by looking at the name the shop buyer would now think "wow a sequel to Il-2 Sturmovik, I used to love that old game. I'm going to have to try this new one" It works both ways and it is a pretty cool word afterall.

The fact the it Cliffs of dover just happens to have the same abbreviation as another game is not a problem at all. I really don't think anyone here will be going around calling the game cod. To me it is a childish thing to use an abbreviation of a very short sentence and not some thing the type of people who will be interested in this would do. This is neither confusing nor a marketing problem.