Historical units????

[bandit4]

Historical Units

I have to say the unit designations for the US forces is lame. Very lame. Would it be that hard to dig up historically accurate units designations for the Divisions and Bgds and use those??? It makes the game seem more like a silly kids game in my opinion to have the unit designations like they are now.

One of the things I like most about this game is the attempt maintain some assemblence of history. What you have now ... is sad. Would it be hard to change to real unit designations? Is there a legal reason not to? What was thought process in designating divisions and brigades this way?

[MOTORMOUTH]

Is there a legal reason not to? What was thought process in designating divisions and brigades this way?

Yes. If I recall correctly, Bloo has done research and discovered that the US army doesn't care for people using those historical assignations.

[folkgren]

Yes. If I recall correctly' date=' Bloo has done research and discovered that the US army doesn't care for people using those historical assignations.[/quote']

S!

So ,

Why has every wargamming company been doing so since 1961's " Gettysburg" by Avalon Hill???

Folkgren

[MOTORMOUTH]

From what I recall, in 2009 the US Army began to require you to license those historical names for commercial use.

[Khsolo]

From what I recall' date=' in 2009 the US Army began to require you to license those historical names for commercial use.[/quote']

You gotta be kidding

[MOTORMOUTH]

You gotta be kidding

Conversely, the U.S. Army, which debuts on the Top 125, exemplifies the diversity of brand licensing. The No. 125 licensor, which reported retail sales of $30 million, boasts 86 licensees with an assortment of products including fashion apparel, footwear, watches, camping equipment and cutlery.

http://www.licensemag.com/licensemag/Brands/Brand-Licensing-at-its-Best/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/724379

Not sure how that affects the historical markings, but I'm thinking that it's covered in there.

[kten]

2009, well ww2 ol has got to be able to grandfather some stuff in and say we had in in the program back in 2001.

[DOC]

no, if we grandfather it in, they will take payment or we get sued

so you need to accept we cannot use historical names in various places and to various degrees, and remember how lucky you are that can still use the real names for the weapons without being sued, as these were at one time going to be license only as well

[kten]

dang nabit!

[rwkeen]

I guess this leaves one question.

How much would it cost to license the historical names, and is this a one off or annual one?

If it's a one off and within reason then maybe the playerbase would contribute towards betting this license.

Just a thought.

[delems]

Hmm, wow, that seems lame of our Army / government.

First, it's over 50 years old (expiration and goes to public domain?) and this information is public knowledge listed in probably 1000s of sources. Finally, as an American, the Army is mine, I've paid for it with my taxes, so if I want to talk about it, and use it, I can.

Seems pretty ridiculous on the surface, not sure I care to take the time to figure out why they would do that.

[bandit4]

OK. Thanks for the quick response.

It's pathetic what the US Gov has been reduced to.

Thanks again.

[j2huggies]

Look at the budget cuts too ( a bit OT I know)... they cut our tuition assistance, and talking about cutting the GI Bill as well... its sad... I'm leaving the Air Force to seek better (and oddly, more stable) employment