I initially thought to enter this into the Issue Council as a bug though it may be a bit presumptuous, so I'm posting it here instead. Note: Though the information discussed below is not displayed in-game at this time, it is available to see on community ship fitting tools like hardpoint.io and erkul.games. The Aegis Regulus C-grade military powerplant's maximum output is 2155 power units / second (PU/s hereafter). This model is notably the current default powerplant on a number of small craft; the Gladius (and Valiant), Avenger Warlock, Arrow, Pisces (and Expedition), Gladiator, Hawk, Super Hornet, Hurricane, Reliant Tana, 325a, and Mantis. Of these, the Hawk, Super Hornet, Reliant Tana, and Mantis can all generate power draws in combat (by maneuvering, using weapons, and charging shields simultaneously) exceeding the powerplant output with their default loadout, even before overclocking. While this behaviour may be intended to encourage upgrading components and/or managing power, no other ships (aside from the base MISC Razor) experience this limitation with their default loadout. That is to say the vast majority of ships come equipped with sufficient system power to operate all ship systems simultaneously. For context, in patch 3.8.0 all S1 powerplants were adjusted to their current output levels except the Regulus, which was unchanged from its prior value. All other S1 powerplant classes (civilian, industrial, competition, and stealth) now have linear correlation between grade and performance across the range of options. This trend is reflected in the extant S2 and S3 powerplants for all classes as well. However, at present the D-grade military powerplants of the same size (Aegis Charger - 2945 PU/s, A&R HyperGen - 3050 PU/s) outperform the C-grade Regulus by 790 and 895 PU/s respectively. Conceptually, a downgrade from a C-grade component to a D-grade component of the same class should not provide improved performance. Size 1 Military Powerplant Comparison +------------------+-------+----------------+---------------------+ | Powerplant Model | Grade | Manufacturer | Power Output (PU/s) | +------------------+-------+----------------+---------------------+ | JS-300 | A | Amon & Reese | 3681 | | QuadraCell | A | Aegis Dynamics | 3576 | | DynaFlux | B | Amon & Reese | 3471 | | Fierell Cascade | B | Aegis Dynamics | 3366 | | OverDrive | C | Amon & Reese | 3260 | | HyperGen | D | Amon & Reese | 3050 | | Charger | D | Aegis Dynamics | 2945 | | Regulus | C | Aegis Dynamics | 2155 | +------------------+-------+----------------+---------------------+ In my analysis of the correlation described above, there is an apparent stepping between models in the S1 military powerplant lineup of approximately 105 PU/s following the grade and manufacturer. In this category, Amon & Reese units are less costly and produce slightly more power than Aegis Dynamics at the same grade, but with poorer emissions ratios; the Regulus being the odd one out. A 210 PU/s gap (precisely double the stepping) exists in between the HyperGen and the OverDrive. Therefore, it is my contention that the Aegis Regulus power output should be approx. 3155 PU/s, following the trend. This would result in the powerplant balancing being internally consistent for sizes 1 to 3. I suspect the reason for this anomaly boils down to one of two things: The old value (2155) is visually similar to the intended one (3155) and may have been missed when updating the component values in 3.8. The old value was kept on purpose so as to not invalidate tuning for power management balancing on the Mantis (QED) and Hawk (EMP) specifically, with the Super Hornet and Reliant Tana as casualties in the process. My question is whether or not the ship balance team agrees that this is an anomaly and whether it is due to one of the reasons above. Assuming it is the latter of the two, what is the plan to align this module's stats? Thank you for reading.