View Full Version : Unit preview: Ancient Siege Ship


aaglo
Sep 23, 2003, 09:47 AM
Hi all.

The series of antique ships are about to be continued. And as usual, You may be a part of the creating process.

This is the current shape of things. As many may notice, it's just basically two ancient triremes with a wooden platform connecting them, and a siege tower on top of all this ridiculous lump.

But as far as I know (and a few www sites), these ships actually existed.

Now, this picture is not the game unit size, so don't worry.

Any suggestions and ideas for the graphics (and stats, but they are not important at this stage) are welcome.

About the attack animation what I had in mind:
- no rotation (duh!)
- catapults throw rocks (or cows - :worship: Monty Python) from the holes of the tower
- flaming arrows from the top of the tower
- NO RAMMING ATTACK!


Additional question: should the tower be made of wood or stone?

Yoda Power
Sep 23, 2003, 09:49 AM
Very nice:goodjob:. But should it have rams if it does´nt ram?

MarineCorps
Sep 23, 2003, 09:50 AM
That is one odd ship. Cool looking at the same time.

Steph
Sep 23, 2003, 09:57 AM
Hmmm.... Instead of a wooden siege tower, could you make a giant wooden rabbit? Then I do Lancelot and I will.... err... No that's not a good idea. Let's try with a badger instead.

Steph
Sep 23, 2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Steph
Hmmm.... Instead of a wooden siege tower, could you make a giant wooden rabbit? Then Lancelot and I will.... err... No that's not a good idea. Let's try with a badger !

Kinboat
Sep 23, 2003, 10:42 AM
What about flaming arrows from the windows and a catapult on top... I think a stone tower would've been too heavy to float... Also maybe make the tower less substantial. Break it up with more little windows or skip a beam every once in a while.
I always imagined the tower being in the center when I pictured these things... maybe just a balance issue (don't want all that weight in the front) but I looks fine where it is.

LBPB
Sep 23, 2003, 10:49 AM
YEEEEEEEEEEEEPIIIIIIIII

aaglo is starting to work on the roman siege ship !!!!!!!!!!! :) :)

LouLong
Sep 23, 2003, 10:54 AM
Yep, looks like a double quinquereme siege ship to me. Not very common but pretty nice. It would have the 'ignore city walls for attacks from the seas' if that existed :D .

Otherwise it is just a beauty ! And will fit in prefectly well in the Punic Wars scenario.

Now since it is a siege ship, the ram is not only not needed but it would make approach difficult IMHO.

Madeira
Sep 23, 2003, 10:55 AM
What about just one of those triremes without the tower? ;)

Yoda Power
Sep 23, 2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Madeira
What about just one of those triremes without the tower? ;) he already made that:p look in the unit section

Amenhotep7
Sep 23, 2003, 11:16 AM
aaglo-
You must hurry with this unit! Puhleez! You must hurry! For every second it is not out, I melt with anticipation! I'm melting! MELTING! Aaaaagghhhh!

P.S. I know the ATG crew will love this one.

aaglo
Sep 23, 2003, 12:44 PM
Hi,
thanks for the comments :thumbsup:

Some replies & thoughts:
- I could shorten the rams, but not remove them entirely. There were rams in these ships according to some pictures. Besides, without the rams the ship would look even more ridiculous.

- I will do some fine-tuning to the tower itself (add small windows and supporting bars, ect.).

- That flame arrows from the hatches and catapult on top sounds quite reasonable. The idea I posted was based only on my poor imagination - I have no idea how this ship actually worked :D

Amenhotep7
Sep 23, 2003, 01:09 PM
aaglo-
Question: How did this thing float? Wouldn't the tower make it too top-heavy? Still, I like it. I like your last two comments:
- I will do some fine-tuning to the tower itself (add small windows and supporting bars, ect.).

- That flame arrows from the hatches and catapult on top sounds quite reasonable. The idea I posted was based only on my poor imagination - I have no idea how this ship actually worked

Do u have any idea when it will be finished? It looks like it's about ready now, since you showed that preview pic. Great job! :worship:

aaglo
Sep 23, 2003, 01:22 PM
Well, the ETA of this unit would be between 24 - 48 hours, I suppose.

Well, I think this thing floated pretty well, considering that the tower was hollow and made of wood. The tower being in the front is balanced by the long rear - so it won't sink so easily ;) (i think).

Amenhotep7
Sep 23, 2003, 01:42 PM
That's what I as thinking after I posted and took another look at the preview.

Question: ETA???

Zeekater
Sep 23, 2003, 01:54 PM
Well, the ETA of this unit would be between 24 - 48 hours, I suppose.

don't be impatient, aaglo's work is worth the wait :D

Amenhotep7
Sep 23, 2003, 01:56 PM
Zeekater-
That's not what I meant. What I meant was- What does ETA mean?

Zeekater
Sep 23, 2003, 01:58 PM
ETA= estimated time of arrival IIRC

--> when it will be ready

aaglo
Sep 23, 2003, 02:02 PM
Yep, ETA= Estimated Time of Arrival.

Well, ETA for version 2 is about 0 minutes.

Here. Comments are still very much wanted ;)

Ossric
Sep 23, 2003, 02:12 PM
looks great, but how does/will it look compared to the other naval units? (size wise)

Amenhotep7
Sep 23, 2003, 02:18 PM
Looks awesome, but where's the file? It looks grand!
(I'm still melting)

aaglo
Sep 23, 2003, 02:19 PM
I'm not sure about the unit size compared to other units, propably a bit larger (or roughly the same size as the civ Caravel). The smaller pics of this unit in the pic above are roughly the civ unit size (a bit smaller compared to the civ Caravel).

BTW, here is a rather good picture this ship I've found from the net, it's a photo of a model.

[EDIT]: Amenhotep - the ETA was for the preview version... :p

Amenhotep7
Sep 23, 2003, 02:23 PM
ooo-
well don't mind me I'll just continue melting...:goodjob:

LBPB
Sep 23, 2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by aaglo
[B]I'm not sure about the unit size compared to other units, propably a bit larger (or roughly the same size as the civ Caravel). The smaller pics of this unit in the pic above are roughly the civ unit size (a bit smaller compared to the civ Caravel).


Aaglo : On this picture the front of the tower seem to be made of stones ??? no ???

And for the size I think you should keep one of the two hull, about the same size you made your trireme (to keep your ships homogeneous). The result will be a bigger ship than your precedent, but it will keep the scale of your work...

aaglo
Sep 23, 2003, 02:58 PM
I think they are wooden beams in that model. Thick wooden beams - two layers of them.

And the size issue: here is the siege ship (suggested unit size) next to the trireme (unit size).

MarcusSaurono
Sep 23, 2003, 03:06 PM
These ships were built on the standard hulls or on barges, so the rams should be the normal size or removed completely. Not to mention that you were right about how it would look with the shortened rams.

The towers were likely wooden frames with hide and canvas covers. They would offer some protection from arrows and stones but the main point was that "You can not hit what you can not see."

LBPB
Sep 23, 2003, 03:10 PM
look good aaglo ;)

Ossric
Sep 23, 2003, 03:10 PM
ok, sizewise it looks great. I was just curious how it would look compared to the other triremes..

Amenhotep7
Sep 23, 2003, 03:40 PM
Yes, I must agree. You have the size down.

aaminion00
Sep 23, 2003, 03:48 PM
This is pretty bad quality. I drew it on a piece of paper very well, but i only had a little time to make it on paint.

It's supposed to be the native american galley i asked you about in the unit graphics forum.

The stern is a totem pole, and the little house is based on the longhouses that the Iriquois lived in. The pedestal on the left is supposed to be a place for a little fire. I figured smoke signals would be a cool fidget. The design on the... uh... damn... I can't believe i forgo.. mast? Yeah mast, that's the thing on the flag of the nation of Iriquois.

I hope you'd be able to make this sometime.

Amenhotep7
Sep 23, 2003, 04:11 PM
aaminion00-
I must admit that this looks cool, but this thread is supposed to be about the Ancient Siege ship.;)

aaglo
Sep 23, 2003, 04:14 PM
aaminion00 - thanks for the clarification ;)

Amenhotep - propably aaminion posted it here, because pictures cannot be sent via pm. ;)

So, no harm done (atleast to me), since I'm thinking about making that indian ship too.

Kryten
Sep 23, 2003, 05:32 PM
Your Siege Galley is absolutely smashing aaglo. :goodjob:
With a small catapult on top, plus some fire arrows, it would be just perfect.

I don’t know if anybody is interested, but here is a little bit of history about these vessels:- :)

“Siege Galleys first became available in the 4th century BC, when larger warships such as quinqueremes became common. Used to great effect by Alexander the Great at the siege of Tyre in 332 BC, by the Macedonian successor Demetrius Poliorcetes (“besieger of cities”), and by the Romans during the siege of Syracuse in 212 BC, these ships were not intended for sea battles. Indeed, they were utterly unsuitable for such a role, being so slow due to weighing twice that of a normal galley but only having the same number of oarsmen as a single ship, being top heavy and unstable in any sort of sea swell, and lastly the huge tower making them almost unsteerable in any sort of wind….but sea battles was not their function.
Instead, these hastily improvised vessels, consisting of two hulls lashed together with a light wooden tower covered with damp animal hides on top, were quickly adapted in only four or five days usually within sight of their intended target coastal city. When all was ready, and the weather was right, these lumbering giants would be filled with soldiers and propelled against the seawalls of the enemy. Archers, catapults and ballista’s would sweep the walls, drawbridges high in the tower would be lowered onto the battlements, and the soldiers would then storm into the city.
Once Rome had absorbed all the nations around the Mediterranean the need for such devices was unnecessary, and the later Byzantine Dromons and Arab vessels were unsuitable for such a function, so Siege Galleys fell out of use by the 1st century AD.”

May I also offer some suggestions for stats:- :D
Attack zero, defence 1, move of 2, bombard and range the same as a catapult, can carry 4 units (they are only on board for a few hours, so being cramped is not a problem), requires no resources, sinks in anything other than coastal waters, costs about 40, and becomes available with say Monarchy.

Oh, and the idea of ‘Marines’, who have some sort of special amphibious ability, is really a modern concept.
In ancient times, ALL foot soldiers (be they Phoenician, Greek, Macedonian, Carthaginian or Roman), were expected to fight on both land AND sea. ;)

aaglo
Sep 23, 2003, 05:39 PM
Thanks kryten :thumbsup:

Now, Go to irc ;)

Xen
Sep 23, 2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Kryten
Oh, and the idea of ‘Marines’, who have some sort of special amphibious ability, is really a modern concept.
In ancient times, ALL foot soldiers (be they Phoenician, Greek, Macedonian, Carthaginian or Roman), were expected to fight on both land AND sea. ;)

no it isnt ;)

the Athenians were the first to make a distinction in the panoploly of ground and sea going infantry men due to the inovations of general (not an admiral!) Ifikrates- the over all effect was VERY similer to what macedonian infantry under Phillip, and Alexander was...

the Romans- made a distiction in the panopoly of troops from time to time as well- you just didnt need to equip a force who wasnt used nearlly as much as the land troopers as well as the land troopes were... not to mention super heavey armor tended to be rather moral draining on the open water as one might well imagine...

Mongoloid Cow
Sep 23, 2003, 06:44 PM
"P.S. I know the ATG crew will love this one."

You bet we will. :)

aaglo
Sep 24, 2003, 03:53 AM
Hmmm.... ATG = Alexander the Great -mod?

Amenhotep7
Sep 24, 2003, 05:52 AM
Yes, aaglo.

mrtn
Sep 24, 2003, 09:26 AM
aaglo, looking beautiful, as always. :D :thumbsup:
Regarding the rams I think you should listen to Kryten et al, and use ordinary-sized rams (if it's not too hard to go back to it, it's no biggie :)).
Regarding the Catapult: "Cherche la vache!" (and I'll let LouLong correct my French spelling ;))

aaglo
Sep 24, 2003, 09:36 AM
"Veal? What do you mean Veal?" :)

About the rams: I think it looks better with the smaller ones, but I can revert them back to original, if you think it looks better.

mrtn
Sep 24, 2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by aaglo
...About the rams: I think it looks better with the smaller ones, but I can revert them back to original, if you think it looks better. I actually think it looks better with larger rams, but I was primarily historically correct. So, arguing for larger rams I can actually kill two knights with one cow. ;)

troopper5
Sep 24, 2003, 10:55 AM
This looks great:thumbsup: But when it will be released, are changes to civ3 files needed? (Additional units, are they?)

Kryten
Sep 24, 2003, 05:32 PM
Well, concerning what size the rams should be…..

Large Rams
---------
As siege galleys were hasty adaptations of normal galleys, then large rams would be appropriate. Of course, a longer ram would require that the tower drawbridges would also have to be longer in order to reach the target city’s wall, and their weight combined with that of the tower would mean that the bow ballast stones would need to be moved to the stern in order to maintain the vessel’s trim….but these are relatively simple alterations. And leaving the long rams attached would make it much easier to convert the ships back to normal use after the siege.

Small Rams
----------
Ancient ships were all built by hand, so there would have been wide variations in construction depending upon the individual wealth and skill of the different shipwrights and smithies, resulting in some galleys having larger rams than others. And obviously the very best galleys would not be chosen for such a conversion, but rather the oldest and poorest quality. So those hulls with the smallest rams would probably be most likely to be used.

No Rams
--------
Sawing off the ram would no doubt have helped these ships to get as close as possible to the target city seawall, as well as improving the trim and overall seaworthiness of the vessel. And as bronze was worth a few quid, they may well have sometimes been removed….assuming that these old hulls were broken up and scrapped rather than being reused following the conclusion of the siege.

So ya pays ya money and takes ya choice! :D

MarcusSaurono
Sep 25, 2003, 12:35 AM
The ships Alexander used were converted barges. His engineers mounted battering rams, catapults and manganels on large platforms stretched between two barges.

This being the case, it would make the most sence to remove the ram completely. After all, why use perfectly good warships or remove an integral part of older ships, thus weakening them further, when a barge is available to do the job?

Ozymandias
Sep 25, 2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by MarcusSaurono
The ships Alexander used were converted barges. His engineers mounted battering rams, catapults and manganels on large platforms stretched between two barges.


Yes, but wasn't this just at the siege of Tyre? -- I'm not an expert on the period, but surely these were used elsewhere and elsewhen as well?

-Oz

MarcusSaurono
Sep 25, 2003, 11:07 AM
Yes it was the seige of Tyre where they were first used and they might have been used elsewhere/when but I can't think of any off the top of my head. I was just saying that it makes more sence, especially given the way most ancient navies developed, to use a tried and true method first and only then to make upgrades based upon the original.

aaglo
Sep 25, 2003, 12:15 PM
A strange way to tell, that ship is being constructed: here is a demo. Notice, that it has no more those rams.

hetairoi22
Sep 25, 2003, 01:04 PM
It looks awesome! Completely awesome! :D Keep up that great work, sir! Lookin' forward to the siege tower, also!

Ozymandias
Sep 25, 2003, 01:45 PM
Looking sweet! :thumbsup:

-Oz

Xen
Sep 25, 2003, 02:58 PM
I think it looked better with the rams... though its still cool, it was ceratinlly more asthetically pleasing, at least to me, with the rams on it...

aaglo
Sep 25, 2003, 05:09 PM
Xen, I thought so too, but since the majority voted for no, I made it without the rams. :)

Unit is done and posted in the units-section.