• Registered: 2005-11-07
  • Posts: 23

Topic: SFB to SX

for all you SFB captains out there here are some formula i've worked out for converting the basic ship elements -- hull, engines, and shields -- from SFB to SX.

(sqrt of Hull Boxes) x 2 = Hull (round to nearest whole)

sqrt of (75 - [Impulse Boxes + Warp Boxes]) = Engines (round to nearest whole)

sqrt of (Shield #1 Boxes/2.5) = Shield (round up; min. 1, max. 5)

this is all very much back-of-the-envelope stuff but it seems to produce playable results. for example, here are the stats for a few basic Federation ships:

DD Hull 6; Engines 7; Shields 3
CA Hull 8; Engines 6; Shields 4
DN Hull 10; Engines 5; Shields 4
BB Hull 14; Engines 3; Shields 5

whadda ya think?

P.S.  i'm no math boy, so if there's a more elegant way to preform these calculations, please post it.  :wink:

Edited to reduce hull multiplier from 2.5 to 2; examples adjusted to reflect change.

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 330

Re: SFB to SX

chaos_engineer wrote:

for all you SFB captains out there here are some formula i've worked out for converting the basic ship elements -- hull, engines, and shields -- from SFB to SX.

(sqrt of Hull Boxes) x 2 = Hull (round to nearest whole)

sqrt of (75 - [Impulse Boxes + Warp Boxes]) = Engines (round to nearest whole)

sqrt of (Shield #1 Boxes/2.5) = Shield (round up; min. 1, max. 5)

With all those Square roots, Dan is sure to be pleased!  Seriously though, I haven't played SFB in a long time, but the final numbers for the examples look pretty good.

For a different view, check out this thread: http://mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.ph … mp;start=0

-Bren

  • Registered: 2005-11-07
  • Posts: 23

Re: SFB to SX

the next step is a Master Weapons Chart. here's a basic one based on Rory Hinnen's conversions.

Master Weapons Chart:

Type I Offensive Phaser
Range: 12 To-Hit: 3+ ROF: 1 PEN: 1 DMG: 1

Type II Offensive/Defensive Phaser
Range: 6 To-Hit: 3+ ROF: 1 PEN: 1 DMG: 1

Type III Defensive Phaser
Range: 3 To-Hit: 3+ ROF: 1 PEN: 1 DMG: 1

Photon Torpedo
Range: 6 To-Hit: 4+ ROF: 1 PEN: 1 DMG: 2 Special: Extra Hull Damage

Disruptor
Range: 9 To-Hit: 4+ ROF: 1 PEN: 1 DMG: 2 Special: Extra Hull Damage

Plasma Torpedo
Range: 18 To-Hit: 4+ ROF: 1 PEN: 2 DMG: 2 Special: Ramge-Based DMG

Plasma Torpedo (F)
Range: 6 To-Hit: 3+ ROF: 1 PEN: 1 DMG: 1 Special: Extra Hull Damage

Plasma Bolt
Range: 12 To-Hit: 3+ ROF: 1 PEN: 1 DMG: 1 Special: Ramge-Based DMG

Rory's ship write-ups have hull values closer to the results produced by using the 2.5 hull multiplier. bigger hull values probably better simulate the durability of SFB ships. maybe i shouldn't have reduced it.

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 740

Re: SFB to SX

Hello to those converting SFB to Starmada.   

All of the relative ranges seem proportional, however I would make the phaser 0nes shoot out to 18 and increase the other weapons accordingly.  The phaser ones can fire farther (75 hexes than a Plasmaa R torp can ever hope to go.   Also, this will make the SFB Converts better able to fight other Starmada ships.  My version of the Federation heavy cruiser has the Phaser 0nes shooting out to 15, and photon torps only to 15.

Steven Gilchrist
Jacksonville, FLa, USA

  • Registered: 2005-11-07
  • Posts: 23

Re: SFB to SX

it'd definitely be nice to keep the SFB conversions on a par with other SX ships, especially the B5 write-ups.

the only drawback i can see to maxing out the weapon ranges is that ship speed and maneuvers become less important since you can pretty much blast anything from anywhere on the table. with shorter ranges smaller, faster ships have more of a role in the fight. but Trek ships are powerful, so longer ranges might be more appropriate.

  • Registered: 2006-08-07
  • Posts: 161

Re: SFB to SX

The counter I offer is that the power of Trek Sips actually seems to vary wildly from episode to episode.

This opens a bit of a question for me, since I'm doing a set of Freespace 2 conversions: should mine be in-line with the already-converted ships as well?

  • Registered: 2005-11-07
  • Posts: 23

Re: SFB to SX

RiflemanIII wrote:

The counter I offer is that the power of Trek Sips actually seems to vary wildly from episode to episode.

that's certainly true. and the real goal is to convert SFB. i think Rory's weapons stats approximate the SFB originals very closely. the plasma weapons are something of a judgement call but, imo, still on the mark.

This opens a bit of a question for me, since I'm doing a set of Freespace 2 conversions: should mine be in-line with the already-converted ships as well?

it'd be nice if they did but i wouldn't worry too much about it.

  • Registered: 2006-01-22
  • Posts: 38

Re: SFB to SX

Well the only bugaboo I can think of is that in SFB the weapons damage trickled off apreciably with range. Only drones, Photons and a few other weapons carried consitent damage to the target.
  If I were to try to convert the weapons over I'd probably lean towards giving most of the standard weapons (phasers, disruptors, fusion guns, etc) range based damage.
  Seems to reflect life in SFB. If you were far away from each other you just nickeled and dimed each others shields away, then when you got within 8 hexes it was usually alpha strike time and ships started dying.
Might be worth testing out and seeing how it works out.
  Now when you can come up with a conversion for ablative shields in Starmada to represent SFB types, I'd be very interested to see'em.

  • Registered: 2005-12-28
  • Posts: 195

Re: SFB to SX

I disagree with the weapon ranges.  That makes me suspect everything else.

In SFB, at range 30, a fleet of ships armed with Phaser-1s/Phaser-2s can cripple a ship (I've been there, had a D7 crippled by a Hydran fleet).  An equivalent sized fleet armed with Plasma-Rs cannot.  Me thinks someone really likes Plasma weapons.  Plasma weapons are short ranged weapons, at longer ranges ships just run away from them.

Phaser-1s should be the longest ranged weapons in the conversion.  As for Phaser-IVs, they're main strength is in their short-ranged punch.  As for longer ranges, stations double the ranges of their weapons so that takes care of the range issue of the Phaser-IV (as for other weapons, just design them with half the range.. they don't need as much stabilization gear on a station as they do on a ship :roll: ).

Decide an effective range for weapons in SFB, then halve it.  I say use 30, since Photon torpedoes and Disruptors have a maximum range of 30 (or used to until they added all that other-range Disruptor crap to pad their rules  :evil: ), this makes the maximum range of 15.  Phaser-1s, Photon Torpedoes, Disruptors, and probably Hellbores (never played with them much) should have a range of 15, Fusion Beams and Phaser-2s are ranged 9, Phaser-3s have a range of 3.  Ranged-based damage is a good option on most, except for the Photon Torpedo.  Range-based ToHit should apply to Disruptors and Photon Torpedoes, with Disruptors having a base damage of 2 and Photon Torpedoes have a base damage of 3.  Hellbores might have the Halve Shields option, since that seems to be the only anti-shield option for weapons at the moment.


Plasmas should be treated as a special drone type.  One problem with adding more seeking weapons is the time it adds to the play time.


As for hulls, I think those sizes are a bit low.

  • Registered: 2006-01-22
  • Posts: 38

Re: SFB to SX

Well yes it is true that a FLEET of ships will kill ONE ship if they concentrate their fire on that ONE ship even at extreme range.
  The point that I was making is that as you get within a very short range (for SFB) the weapons become increasingly powerful. So powerful that ONE ship can usually cripple or kill another ship at short ranges. A very sizeable change in damage output vs range.
  Of course weapons with the RBD option do tend to be rather chunky space wise.
  Just something to think about.

  • Registered: 2005-11-07
  • Posts: 23

Re: SFB to SX

Ironvein wrote:

Well the only bugaboo I can think of is that in SFB the weapons damage trickled off apreciably with range. Only drones, Photons and a few other weapons carried consitent damage to the target.
  If I were to try to convert the weapons over I'd probably lean towards giving most of the standard weapons (phasers, disruptors, fusion guns, etc) range based damage.

the problem with doing that is then all the weapons start to look the same. instead, range based dam is reserved for plasma weapons since that's their most distinctive attribute.

Ironvein wrote:

Now when you can come up with a conversion for ablative shields in Starmada to represent SFB types, I'd be very interested to see'em.

not going to happen. using either Screens or Directional Sheilding are the two best options.

  • Registered: 2005-11-07
  • Posts: 23

Re: SFB to SX

GamingGlen wrote:

I disagree with the weapon ranges.  That makes me suspect everything else.

In SFB, at range 30, a fleet of ships armed with Phaser-1s/Phaser-2s can cripple a ship (I've been there, had a D7 crippled by a Hydran fleet).

except that at range 30 phasers have only a 2 in 6 chance of hitting, so if you ratchet up the range you'll also have to make the to-hit correspondingly higher, e.g., 5+. your phasers are going to have a tough time hitting anything.

GamingGlen wrote:

Me thinks someone really likes Plasma weapons.  Plasma weapons are short ranged weapons, at longer ranges ships just run away from them.

hence the range based damage. but i'll review those stats more closely.

GamingGlen wrote:

Phaser-1s should be the longest ranged weapons in the conversion.  As for Phaser-IVs, they're main strength is in their short-ranged punch.

actually at range 30 phaser IV's have a better chance to hit than phaser I's and do more damage. besides, no stats for phaser IV's have even been posted! however, here's what i came up with a few days ago:

Type IV Heavy Phaser
Range: 18 To-Hit: 3+ ROF: 1 PEN: 1 DMG: 2

GamingGlen wrote:

Decide an effective range for weapons in SFB, then halve it.

that's not the approach i'm taking at all. instead, look at the to-hit probabilities at the various ranges and match them to the SX to-hit numbers. Phaser I's have a 50% of hitting at range 9-15. that directly translates to range 15 and to-hit 4+. however, to make phasers a distinctively accurate weapon, they're given to-hit 3+ range 12.

GamingGlen wrote:

Ranged-based damage is a good option on most, except for the Photon Torpedo.

as i mentioned in a previous post, the problem with giving all the weapons ranged based damage is that then they all start to look the same.

GamingGlen wrote:

Range-based ToHit should apply to Disruptors and Photon Torpedoes, with Disruptors having a base damage of 2 and Photon Torpedoes have a base damage of 3.  Hellbores might have the Halve Shields option, since that seems to be the only anti-shield option for weapons at the moment.

Plasmas should be treated as a special drone type.  One problem with adding more seeking weapons is the time it adds to the play time.

those ideas are worth exploring. however, since Photon Torpedoes already do Extra Hull Damage increasing them to Dam 3 seems like over-kill to me.

GamingGlen wrote:

As for hulls, I think those sizes are a bit low.

i already commented on that in an earlier post. if you use the 2.5 multiplier you get the following values:

DD Hull 8; CA Hull 10; DN Hull 12; BB Hull 18

that's about as high as you can get and still keep under hull 20.

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 330

Re: SFB to SX

Ironvein wrote:

  Now when you can come up with a conversion for ablative shields in Starmada to represent SFB types, I'd be very interested to see'em.

Here's what I wrote when this came up before.
-Bren

jygro wrote:

As someone has already said, I would also recommend screens (take shields x 4 for the number of shield factors), but I would fudge the damage system to state that ALL damage is done to the shield rating on that hexside before anything is rolled on the damage chart (most SFB games, the shields had to be completely 'down' before damage was assigned to systems). At that point any 'shield hits' destroy a shield generator. At the end of the turn, all ships recover a number of shield factors equal to 1/2 their current shield rating (round up).

For example, the D7 Battlecruiser would start with 12 shield factors to place in any hexside the player wishes. Lets say, the hexside that a Federation Heavy Cruiser is attacking has 4 shield factors assigned and 8 damage points get through the shields. The first 4 damage points automatically take out the 4 shield factors assigned to that hexside (lowering the D7's total to 8 ). The next 4 damage points are rolled on the chart as normal and the dice come up: 1,3,4,6 which results in 2 hull, 1 special equipment, 1 engine, 2 phasers and a shield. At the end of the turn, the D7 regenerates 1 shield factor bringing it up to 9 shield factors (1/2 of 2 is one).

  • Registered: 2005-11-07
  • Posts: 23

Re: SFB to SX

jygro wrote:

As someone has already said, I would also recommend screens (take shields x 4 for the number of shield factors), but I would fudge the damage system to state that ALL damage is done to the shield rating on that hexside before anything is rolled on the damage chart (most SFB games, the shields had to be completely 'down' before damage was assigned to systems). At that point any 'shield hits' destroy a shield generator. At the end of the turn, all ships recover a number of shield factors equal to 1/2 their current shield rating (round up).

that is a clever idea. it reminds me of the way shields worked in FASA's STSTCS. and i recall Dan suggesting something similar, except with the screens losing one point every time they're hit. the only question is: what point cost would you give them?

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,424

Re: SFB to SX

Was there ever a conclusion to this, and will you guys be updating this for the Admiralty version?

  • Rory
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2006-01-27
  • Posts: 21

Re: SFB to SX

I was thinking about sitting down and going through the numbers just for the fun of it. If someone wants to work with me, it's nice to not be alone.

.r.

hinnen@pacbell.net