As Suboptimal says, one would naturally need a correction factor in addition to the THN Refactoring so you get to the same scale.. As a quick-and-dirty example, current ML is 46 BV and with raw modifiers becomes 14, so multiply the numbers by 46/14 and call it the "Medium Laser Adjustment Factor". So the ML is still 46 BV, cERPPC is fairly close to its original value at 384, and so on.

Since it's essentially changing the short/medium/long range bracket multipliers with another smaller one, the correcting factor could be made more accurate than using the Medium Laser differences as a rough guide, but I'm too lazy to bother.

Mainly because there is no "fixed" multiplier that works. Picking a 46/14 multiplier based on the IS ML's apparent ratio, for example, turns the IS MPL into a BV 79 weapon (its apparent ratio is 48/24, or 2:1). There are no other examples of "flexible" multipliers in the BV calculation, as every other number is cut-and-dried (speed multipliers being based on the actual speed factor, armor multipliers being based on the type of armor & not whether a particular location can even stop a SL, etc.). Picking an arbitrary multiplier when there's no need to even resort to an adjustment with a modifier in the first place unnecessarily complicates the calculations for custom designs...& just imagine what that will do to the calculations of the stock designs.

The main thing to remember is that the weapon BV calculations are assuming

**target practice**: a Regular (Gunnery 4) pilot in a unit that is not moving (but not immobile) shooting at a target that is not

**currently** moving (but again not immobile). Basically, 2 pilots standing still & just trying to "stand & deliver" each other until one of the 'Mechs is dead. No fancy movement, no use of terrain modifiers or atmospheric/gravitic conditions, just 2 'Mechs in flat open country squaring off like Old West gunslingers...only instead of seeing who's the fastest draw, it's seeing who can inflict the most damage faster at longer ranges. The BV calculations already account for range modifiers -- less BV points accumulate for Medium & Long brackets vs. Short bracket, with Minimum Range also dropping the accumulation of BV points. Note that's the only difference in BV calculations for Clan vs. IS LRM launchers: aside from IS LRMs having a minimum range, they both have the same range brackets & same average damage...but that Minimum Range means a Clan LRM has more BV.

Any particular reason why this, specifically, is a problem? Their huge minimum range effectively makes shots at ranges 1 & 2 even more difficult than making shots at maximum range. IS Missile Boats tend to have backup short-ranged weapons for a good reason.

I don't follow. Not only does this not presume the use of a correction factor, but it presumes in absence of a correction factor such that Offensive BV takes a steep dive off a cliff, this somehow penalizes Battlemechs that utilize TCs. But the opposite would be the case for BV balanced games: Since the effect of the is effectively the same but the BV factor it modifies is smaller, its "BV Effectiveness" increases and it would become better / effectively undervalued relative to its actual worth.

As an analogy, a piece of equipment that does literally nothing but raise the BV by 1000 would be a massive nerf to the carrying Battlemech, and would never be taken or used, while one that forced all shots to hit without adjusting BV in any way would become effectively mandatory and clearly overpowered equipment.

Because there are situations in which even a Green pilot can have a reasonably good chance of hitting a target from 1 or 2 hexes away with an IS LRM launcher. Prone target that's immobilized (shutdown due to heat scale, pilot lost consciousness, quad 'Mech has all 4 legs destroyed, etc.) is a base modifier of -6 from the adjacent hex, -3 from 2 hexes away; a Green (Gunnery 6) pilot standing still (no mod) has a +5 (2 hexes) or +6 (1 hex) with Minimum Range, so from 2 hexes away they only need an 8+ to hit, & adjacent they only need 6+.

Remember, the calculation of an individual weapon's base BV is based on its average damage x % chance of getting a hit in each hex, totaling all hex amounts for Short/Medium/Long brackets. If your calculation assumes base 8 for Short, & you apply more than a +4 mod for Minimum Range, there's zero chance to hit, & therefore 0 to add to its total BV... even though there are situations where you can hit from that range.

Sure, that's a very limited scenario that doesn't happen too often...but we aren't recalculating a unit's BV every time a scenario or mapsheet changes, are we? We're not saying, "Oh, there's a lot of Heavy Woods on here, I should penalize my Gauss- and LRM-equipped units on their BV because they aren't going to be able to utilize their longer ranges effectively", & we certainly don't say, "let's boost the BV for our Medium Laser 'boats' since they're going to shine on this map". We don't say, "oh, there's a lot of open terrain on this mapsheet, my short-ranged 'Mechs are going to need their BV nerfed since they'll get torn up by Gauss & LRM fire before they can close in". Those are situational factors that change from session to session, & even then are also affected by player tactical decisions (stay in the open vs. running through the woods) & simple dumb luck (sometimes the dice roll high all day, sometimes they roll low).

And, no, the TC effectiveness will drop off. Depending on how you do the calculation (separate for the TC or modifying each weapon's BV), the TC modifier is applied to the base weapon BV for each weapon. If you reduce the weapon's base BV, the TC mod also drops...& if the

**actual** divisor for the weapon's BV reduction is more than 3, then you just cut the TC's bonus as well. IS PPC's base BV is 176 (using 4+ as the base for the strike roll before range mods). The TC adds +25%, which means either add +44 or modify the PPC's BV to 220. If you recalculate the PPC's base BV using 8+ as the base strike roll, its BV drops down to 44...& multiplied by 3 is only 132. 132 is

**less** than 176; you basically cost your unit 44 points of base offensive BV (prior to any movement modifier). With the TC's 25% bonus, that leaves you with a pre-multiplier mod of +11 (55 points total), giving you 155 points with the x3 multiplier. Again, 155 is not only way less than the standard 220, it's less than the standard PPC's value

*without* a TC. Similar thing happens with the Gauss Rifle (Clan or IS): book BV 320, TC adds +80 on, final total 400; recalculating using 8+ for the base drops it to 88, TC adds +22 for 110 total, with the x3 multipliers you get up to 264 & 330 (essentially meaning that with the modified BV a TC-enhanced Gauss is barely better than the unmodified book Gauss value without the TC). In fact, the

**only** weapons that seem to make out better with that convoluted math are pulse weapons, as their base BV only seem to drop in half, so using that kind of mod actually gives them 50% more base BV than normal (even before the benefit of the TC).

In the end, though, BV is meant to be a semi-immaterial method of comparing the

**relative** strength of 2 different units, but still recognizes that many other tactical & situational factors will affect the outcome of a battle. Trying to overcomplicate the BV calculations to try to adjust for a particular situation not only complicates the matter, but ends up opening the door for further "adjustments"...like, for example, the modifier for TC on a unit should be

**lower** as the pilot's Gunnery score number drops...because the actual improvement on accuracy from the -1 mod drops as the actual TN drops (going from 12 to 11 triples your accuracy; going from 3 to 2 only increases accuracy by only 2.8%). Imagine having to recalculate your TC bonus, then recalculating the adjustment due to the Speed Factor,

**then** applying the skill multiplier for the pilot's P/G scores, every single time you put a new pilot into the 'Mech...or worse, every single time he improves his Gunnery skill. But that's the same kind of situational BV recalculation that's being suggested here.