I thought AP had it wrong at with the spelling of fuze but after I looked it up because one of the scenarios I am submitting has it as well, I found the AP spelling of fuze to be correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuze_(munitions)
So it's Fuze not Fuse in AP-PG land, whoever I also found that Fuse is also correct on some internet sites as well.
(08-30-2012, 01:48 AM)JayTownsend Wrote: [ -> ]I thought AP had it wrong at with the spelling of fuze but after I looked it up because one of the scenarios I am submitting has it as well, I found the AP spelling of fuze to be correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuze_(munitions)
So it's Fuze not Fuse in AP-PG land, whoever I also found that Fuse is also correct on some internet sites as well.
It seems to be either/or, from the top of the wikipedia page:
Quote:This article is about fuzes (also spelled fuses) for military munitions such as bombs, missiles, mines, shells, grenades
(08-30-2012, 01:28 AM)campsawyer Wrote: [ -> ]I see the VT fuses are more of a deterrent than something that kills.
Well, having a '10' roll shift from an M1 (on the 16-col) to an "X" (on the 42-col) does both! Dead = deterred!
I understand your point, however. Just note that my query only is relevant once units close the range to being adjacent.
To Uncle Vinny:
TheDoctor has read some Dickins (he's in a school with a classical curriculum). I'm an Austen fan, myself.
(08-30-2012, 03:26 AM)Poor Yorek Wrote: [ -> ] (08-30-2012, 01:28 AM)campsawyer Wrote: [ -> ]I see the VT fuses are more of a deterrent than something that kills.
Well, having a '10' roll shift from an M1 (on the 16-col) to an "X" (on the 42-col) does both! Dead = deterred!
To Uncle Vinny:
TheDoctor has read some Dickins (he's in a school with a classical curriculum). I'm an Austen fan, myself.
If you move your units into the open with VT fuses in effect, you deserve what you get.
I do not believe that VT fuzes would affect the friendly fire die roll. There's already a situation where an 8 point mortar can be on a much higher column or a 16 strength gun can be on a lower column, so its not like the friendly fire results are tied to the type or ordnance. I don't see any reason that would change for VT fuzes.
(08-30-2012, 03:30 AM)campsawyer Wrote: [ -> ]If you move your units into the open with VT fuses in effect, you deserve what you get.
True, but that is not the point I am trying to make. The question is whether the FF rules should be commensurate with the increased effectiveness of the VT fusing.
After all, the US could put their infantry in the open with open terrain adjacent: no matter how clever the German player is with his approach, to assault they will have to move adjacent allowing the US player then the advantage of the VT fusing Bombardment Fire. What I was suggesting is that, in that case, being adjacent, ought not the risk of FF be commensurate (at least to some extent) with the advantage gained since VT fusing knows neither friend nor foe?
Of course, were US forces in a town or woods hex that forced the Germans to approach adjacent into an open hex (prior to assault), then the US force would be immune to any increased FF effect (by my proposal - if it be that) as the existing rule only allows for the column shift in open terrain.
(08-30-2012, 03:33 AM)J6A Wrote: [ -> ]I do not believe that VT fuzes would affect the friendly fire die roll. There's already a situation where an 8 point mortar can be on a much higher column or a 16 strength gun can be on a lower column, so its not like the friendly fire results are tied to the type or ordnance. I don't see any reason that would change for VT fuzes.
My reply would be that this simply reflects the random spread in the possible result of a missed bombardment (e.g., a low result from fire "scatter" whereas a "high" result might be due to the friendly side not being hunkered down - expecting the rainfall 200m over). What my thinking was vis-a-vis shifting the FF scale a bit move severe is simply that ... statistically shifting a random distribution to reflect that the improved munitions would have, on average, a more significant effect on its target (intended or otherwise).
I understand your thinking, I just see it another way and will go with the RAW.
(08-30-2012, 04:39 AM)Poor Yorek Wrote: [ -> ] (08-30-2012, 03:30 AM)campsawyer Wrote: [ -> ]If you move your units into the open with VT fuses in effect, you deserve what you get.
True, but that is not the point I am trying to make. The question is whether the FF rules should be commensurate with the increased effectiveness of the VT fusing.
After all, the US could put their infantry in the open with open terrain adjacent: no matter how clever the German player is with his approach, to assault they will have to move adjacent allowing the US player then the advantage of the VT fusing Bombardment Fire. What I was suggesting is that, in that case, being adjacent, ought not the risk of FF be commensurate (at least to some extent) with the advantage gained since VT fusing knows neither friend nor foe?
Of course, were US forces in a town or woods hex that forced the Germans to approach adjacent into an open hex (prior to assault), then the US force would be immune to any increased FF effect (by my proposal - if it be that) as the existing rule only allows for the column shift in open terrain.
I see your point, but I think the simplicity of the FF works. Adding one mod would mean that you would need to add them all.
