Firstly, I don't have PB (not an Eastern Front fan) but anything I ask or observe should be just as applicable thereto.

I've read the Designer's Notes, scoured the Web, and collected (both from here, Grognard and elsewhere) what I believe to be a pretty complete set of the great work people have done (and shared) with respect to updating PL to the standards set by AIW. That being said, a couple of things still stand out to me as needing a bit of discussion -- so here I am.

On IF combat values: the various methods out there all seem to boil down to the same general concept: reduce (H) unit AF by 1/4, and M unit AF by 1/3, and then apply the AIW WEC (usually modified downward an average of 1 hex for more primitive sighting devices). This is in keeping with the Designer's Notes in AIW, and I'm all for it. My only concern: smaller (usually 81mm) mortar units. My impulse is to leave them at an AF of 3, maybe drop to 2. It seems to me that dropping them to an AF of 1 would be too drastic a change; reverse-engineering similar values from other units in both games seems to indicate a 'sliding scale' as caliber goes down, tending to reinforce my feeling a fill 1/3 reduction would be too drastic. Any thoughts out there on this?

Next, on to terrain.

There was a marked break in depicting woods hexes between PL and AIW: AIW did away entirely with the "woods edge" concept with respect to movement, and it's not addressed at all in the rules set. The main effect I see is than in AIW there's no reason (apart from insufficient MP) to prevent a vehicle unit from travelling from one woods hex to another in succession. The movement rules in PL specifically prevent this. Does it then seem reasonable that, when adopting AIW standards, such movement is now permitted, assuming the vehicle has sufficient MP to spend?

Hilltop edges versus Crest edges--does it seem reasonable to define these as synonymous and apply the AIW TEC for crest edges to both? The main difference I could see would be when a LOS crosses multiple hilltop edges along the same hilltop. In the "simple" case I visualize two units, each on a slop hex, facing each other across a series of clear hilltop hexes; in such a case I can see both units being Hull Down with respect to each other. It gets a little mudder when a unit is fully on a hilltop, the other is on a slope hex of that hilltop, and the LOS crosses multiple hilltop hexes (picture a long hill, and one of the two slope-hex units from before just moved one hex closer and is now fully on the hill while the other remains on the slope). Looking at the geometry of it, I can make a case for both units to still be visible to each other, and also to remain hull-down with respect to each other (both are still behind "crest" edges), right up until the point where the hilltop unit moves adjacent to the slope hex unit; then I'm not entirely sure conferring hull-down to either unit would be appropriate but, according to the letter of the AIW Standard rules, it would still apply. In sum, it seems pretty straightforward to treate Hilltop eges as Crest edges, the only special case seeming to be when multiple Hilltop edges come into the LOS. Again, any one have thoughts or observations on this?

Cheers!
Mark

I'll address two points. The IF, & woods. The AF of a piece depends in part on the number of wepons it represents. There are some differences between the two games. ie. in AIW the off board & on board artillery may be either four or six gun units. In PB all the pieces represent six cannon. (Ignoring that that a four gun battery was the common artillery size in WWII.)
My estimate placed the 81 mtr AF between 3 & 4. There was very little difference between the light mtrs of 1943 & 1973. In many cases they are hardly modified from the WWII designs.
The woods of AIW represent orchards and scrub. Those of PL include hardwood and fir forrests. A much denser obstacle. One green hexside is realistic for most vehicals.

Good point on the difference between desert & Western European woods and how they could account for the lack of 'dark green' hexside symbols on the AIW maps.

On the AF for M unit types, I guess I wasn't entirely clear. There aren't a ton of identical versions of (H) and M units between PL and AIW, but there are a couple to derive data points from, and in almost every case I find it obvious what AF to reduce PL units to so as to make the AIW WEC useful as a replacement. My only real question lies with the small(er) mortars, like the 81mm for example. If you, like I, intended to convert the PL version to the lower AF levels so as to use the AIW tables for IF, would you leave the AF at 3, reduce it to 2, or follow the 1/3 trend and reduce it all the way to 1? This is, again, for playing PL but with the AIW-era tables, movement and IF rules. Using AIW boards is just a bonus, as I like being able to handle games set in north Afrika.

Cheers!
Mark

I usually leave the mortar AFat 3. The original AF in PB, or the H & M classesdo not seem to be based on the same assumptions.

Not An EASTERN FRONT FAN FFS they only won the SSW!!!!

What's an FFS? Ditto for SSW?

You Where saying that your not an eastern front fan! The eastern Front was the front that won the second world war!!

FFS means "For **** Sake" LOL

Oh, I see. Not an abbreviation I'm familiar with.

Not debating who did what during the real war, I simply have little or no interest in playing wargames covering that part of WWII. Everybody's got their preferences.

Cheers!
Mark