I hear you, Mr. IJ. Loud and clear.
My Error. I've identified the error in my maths: the progression is per 200 tons, but I think my formula assume 100 tons. I will not try to fix the formula at the moment, because the whole thing didn't satisfy me.
Jim's Function. I've felt that that sort of approach -- an equation where the dominant term in the low tonnages gracefully falls away for the higher tonnages -- is the ideal. It seems to me that Book 2 drives produced an interesting and varying tension between hull volume and drive volume, and that straight percentages (like those from MgT HG) is an appropriate abstraction for larger ships.
I've done some work to consolidate CT Book 2 and Book 5. It's not pretty, and it's generally easier and not REALLY all that much of a penalty to stick with one or the other.
My Ideal. In my world, hulls would use these functions:
J-drive = 2.5% per Jn (+5t for hulls < 2500 t) (Min 10t)
M-drive = 2% per Mn (-1t for hulls < 2500 t) (Min 2t)
P-plant = 1.5% per Pn (+1t for hulls < 2500 t) (Min 1t)
...which, alas, follow neither MgT HG nor CT HG.
But Frankly, in 99% of the cases, the low-end maneuver drives' "-1 ton" and power plants' "+1 ton" cancel each other out. In other words, they can be ignored unless you attach a different type of drive to the power plant, or attach a different type of power plant to the M-drive.
My Error. I've identified the error in my maths: the progression is per 200 tons, but I think my formula assume 100 tons. I will not try to fix the formula at the moment, because the whole thing didn't satisfy me.
Jim's Function. I've felt that that sort of approach -- an equation where the dominant term in the low tonnages gracefully falls away for the higher tonnages -- is the ideal. It seems to me that Book 2 drives produced an interesting and varying tension between hull volume and drive volume, and that straight percentages (like those from MgT HG) is an appropriate abstraction for larger ships.
I've done some work to consolidate CT Book 2 and Book 5. It's not pretty, and it's generally easier and not REALLY all that much of a penalty to stick with one or the other.
My Ideal. In my world, hulls would use these functions:
J-drive = 2.5% per Jn (+5t for hulls < 2500 t) (Min 10t)
M-drive = 2% per Mn (-1t for hulls < 2500 t) (Min 2t)
P-plant = 1.5% per Pn (+1t for hulls < 2500 t) (Min 1t)
...which, alas, follow neither MgT HG nor CT HG.
But Frankly, in 99% of the cases, the low-end maneuver drives' "-1 ton" and power plants' "+1 ton" cancel each other out. In other words, they can be ignored unless you attach a different type of drive to the power plant, or attach a different type of power plant to the M-drive.