Twice in the past few months I have fielded questions about converting PB pieces to AIW standards. Here is a extract from the conversions my friends I did back in the 1980s. These are for H & M Class pieces capable of Indirect Fire. The coversions were made with the pieces representing four cannon rather than the six of the PB game. This was becuase four weapons was the most common unit in that era. These values were not meant to be final word onthe subject and are tossed up here for those who like to experiment. Any comments are appreciated.
Soviet 122 Howitzer 8 AF
" " 120 Mortar 9 AF (8 weapons per piece)
German 105 Howitzer 8 AF
150 " " 10 AF
120 mortar 5 AF (4 weapons)
Wespe 10 AF
Hummel 15 AF
British 25lbr 6 AF
These probably seem weak so understnad that in AIW these values would be doubled vs soft targets, IF is modeled better in AIW than with the poor PL rules, and that in WWII it was common to mass three or more batteries against a target.
would you be willing to expand this and write it up for inclusion in an upcoming feature on the website? One of the reasons that the site has been so static over the past two years is that I've been in school in addition to full time employment. That ends in April and I want to roll out some new stuff. Do you want to have this included?
Hi. I'm curious how you, Carl, and anyone else who has converted to the AIW H & M values, adjust the OOBs for PB & PL situations created under the original AFs? Do you add more units so it ends up with the same number of factors anyway? If not, does the change in AFs seem to effect play-balance (since most situations seem closely balanced)?
Dennis..since the AIW IF rules, particularly on the Wepons Effectivness Chart are notably different than PB/PL the assumption when adopting AIW type values is that one will be using AIW type IF rules. Another factor is that the PB/PL artillery, and possibly some mortar pieces do not accomadate the actual TO/TE, and how the weapons were deployed, of the 1943-45 period those two games were designed to cover. ie the TE for the US towed artillery was four cannon per battery grouped in battalions of 12 cannon. The Germans had the same into 43 but losses caused the typical battery to average three cannon. This was formally recognized in many German units by conversion to a nine gun battalion. The Brits 25lbr regiments of 24 cannon were organized in three batterys each with two troops of four cannon. In all three of these armys the basic unit of battery/troop was typically dispersed from the others by more than 200 meters. In PL terms two batterys/troops were very seldom stacked in the same hex. On the eastern front the artillery of the PB game was generally disperesed in even smaller units across the hex grid. The Soviet 76.2 cannon (the AT piece) had a TE of 4/12, but as with the Germans losses meant the average was much lower. In the defense this weapon was usually deployed in pairs or threes, with the cannon of a battalion positioned so as to concentrate fire from dispersed positions. In PB terms this deployment ammounted to 3 cannon per hex. In the offence the Soviet artillery was massd much closer for control purposes (lack of communication equipment) and a density of a dozen cannon, or more, per hex was not uncommon.
I have experimented with various size pieces, but usually compromise using the common four cannon TE. After playing these games for over 30 years the few of the scenarios, particularly PB, seem balanced to me. In any case I am more interested in modeling combined arms tactics than in play balance. A another answer would be that the effect on play balance would also depend on what other AIW rules you are using. The Interdiction Fire rule of AIW, like Beveridges Barrage Fire rules will have a larger effect on balance than gaining a couple pieces or a few dozen Attack Factors.
