Well then, Hiryos occupy a particular corner niche in PV costing. They can theoretically behave as a VTOL with 16" movement and are costed accordingly, but in actual game play they are often or usually not airborne and only moving 8" turn by turn (as a BA taxi loading, taking off, landing and off-loading turn after turn).
I'm afraid it's really not possible to model that kind of granularity.
Okay, things have settled, at least for the moment, so I thought I'd cover some unit comparisons to show how it is I'm reaching the conclusions I am, and hopefully invite others to do the same.
As I mentioned earlier, the PV system assumes all battles are taking place on the moon or Saskatchewan or somewhere similarly flat and dull. Ignoring the effect of terrain is potentially troublesome, but all units get hit with the same conditions, and there's really no way to assume a standard terrain situation. In addition, I hate how terrain is modelled in AS and have hopes that it will change; if it does, we can't have PV tied to that, lest we have to do this all over again. So I hope we can all accept that attempting to factor terrain into a neutral scenario point system is a bad idea. I also don't assume flak, precision ammo, standing still, and any other items that can alter balances. Lastly, I am willing to accept some drift: two units of the exact same point total don't have to mutually annihilate each other for me to consider them balanced. After all, there's numerous ways to rack up PV aside from armour and guns, and different units perform better in different scenarios. We always have to assume an army-level scale, where a player has enough points that they can occasionally take specialized units that might underperform in some areas (mech combat) but perform above par in others (anti-aircraft or anti-infantry, say).
To check a unit's effectiveness, I filter my spreadsheet to find other units of the same PV and then run a MathTech battle between them. For example, let's take a look at our Fensalir WiGE (HAG). sadlerbw brought this one up in the context of how much it had gone up in cost compared to the MUL system (19 points when he brought it up, although now that we're just using TMM as the basis of our adder, it's "only" gone up 13 points, to 59 points.
Let's look at a pair of other 65-point units as challengers:
Fensalir Combat WiGE (HAG) CV 4 10"g 8 4 8 6 4 0 65
Daishi (Dire Wolf) E BM 4 6" 10 5 9 9 3 0 65
The Fensalir has a higher defense modifier, is faster, and does more damage at long range. If it wants, all other things being equal (which we always assume), it can keep the fight at long range and thrash the Dire Wolf. It will need 9s to hit (about 1 in 4 shots; divide 100 by the percentage chance to hit), while the Daishi will only hit on 11s (about every twelfth shot). Win goes to the Fensalir.
What about medium range? Well, each side needs 2 less to hit. As 2D6 is a curve, that does not drop things equally: the Daishi is still much worse off. The Fensalir is going to hit about every second round (once every 1.7 attacks, actually, or about three hits every five rounds). The Daishi is going to hit once every four rounds. However, the Daishi does more damage, and can take more.
Fensalir needs 7s (58.33%). 6 damage = 5 rounds to win (3 hits, 18 damage)
Daishi needs 9s (27.77%). 9 damage = 8 rounds to win (2 hits, 18 damage)
The Fensalir will still likely win, though it's not at all impossible for the Daishi; it just has to beat the odds and connect earlier. There's also the possibility of a critical for the Daishi (since its first hit goes internal) or a motive hit, neither of which are to be taken lightly, but overall, the Fensalir appears to be the better combat machine here.
On to our next challenger:
Fensalir Combat WiGE (HAG) CV 4 10"g 8 4 8 6 4 0 65
Kodiak II 2 BM 4 8" 10 3 8 8 6 3 65
Similar scenario as before: the Fensalir has more speed and more defense, though less long-range firepower. Still, it will handily win at long range, because the Kodiak will again only hit once every twelve rounds on average, which means an estimated 36 rounds to victory. Though the Kodiak's second hit around turn 24 would force motive and critical checks, the Fensalir will have it by turn 16 or so unless the Kodiak's first hit causes a bad motive hit.
At medium range:
Fensalir needs 7s (58.33%). 6 damage = 5 rounds to win (3 hits, 18 damage). This is a little iffy: the Kodiak will likely recover at least 4 points of armour thanks to its BHJ3, which isn't enough to save it. However, if it has one extra turn of healing, due to a touch of bad rolling on the Fensalir's part or just how its hits are spaced out, it does recover the armour it needs to keep in the fight a bit longer. However, this still probably won't allow it to win, and of course, there's also criticals to consider....
Kodiak needs 9s (27.77%). 8 damage = 8 rounds to win (2 hits, 16 damage). First hit does not go internal, although a motive hit is possible. Overheat is not likely to help.
Not complete dominance, but overall I'd say the Fensalir is the better brawler here. And now it's 59 points instead of 65. I definitely have no problems raising it up from its current MUL 46-point cost. Even with this increase it appears a bit undercosted.
Feel free to run your own comparisons. If you find something interesting (either confirming or breaking the existing point totals), post your results here. This is what I'll be doing to stress test the system some more. In particular, I'm curious about cheap units: how does the peasant horde work out against units of quality?