While we continue to discuss the density of LH, I have one more comment on the revised assumptions I'm using to get MT back closer to HG. I knew there was still one missing assumption that would eventually produce a failure like the SDB. I did not use this assumption because it is the worst part of the HG system. But I should still lay out the problem and let you all discuss it.
The problem, as simply as I can put it, is: 1 HG power plant unit = 1 MT power plant unit (EPs only) + "free" power for all the drives once the PP is "large enough".
In other words, there is no explicit energy cost for M/J drives in HG, only that the PP be large enough. The EPs provided by a HG PP are almost exactly (within rounding) the same as the MWs (x250) provided by MT PPs.
The final step to "exactly" replicate HG in MT is as follows:
1) MT PPs still need to be made as fuel efficient as HG, so multiply needed MT PP fuel by 0.15, and use the HG formula for jump fuel of %age ship volume = 10% x jump number.
2) MT maneuver and jump units are fine, except eliminate the MW cost for maneuver units. This will be covered by the size of the overall power plant.
3) We must compute a PP number for MT, same as HG in the same way. This is total volume of PPs as %age of hull divided by a TL factor of 4 for TL 7-8, 3 for TL 9-12, 2 for TL 13-14, and 1 for TL 15. This is identical to the Power Plant Table from HG pg. 23.
4) The computed PP number must exceed both the maneuver number and jump number. There are NO other requirements except fuel for powering the PPS and j-drive.
5) All available MWs of power from the PP are available for all other systems, including excess power to compute Agility.
It is now easy to see the difference/problem. In MT, you need to build more power plant to power the drives. In HG, drives are powered for free if the PP is large enough, and all EPs/MWs are available for other systems. I have a table that quantifies this precisely, but it is approximately correct that HG PPs implicitly produce almost 2x the energy as MT PPs of the same size.
I didn't add this calculation because I don't like it. All power is explicit in MT, and I don't want an exception for space drives. So my original proposed solution means there will be some limitations on Agility as ships become more massive. I suspect this diminishes as size increases, as is the case for the SDB. I have a MT version of one of the very large capital ships from Supp9, so I'll convert that next and see what we get.
Anyway, this is all hammering away at a dead, dead system, but for me it was a very useful exercise. I'm probably going to implement these changes in my game as I like the scaling effects. All but the problem discussed here, or course, and if anyone has a good explanation of why drive power should be "free" for large enough PP, I am very interested to hear it.
Thanks as always, fellow gearheads!