Thoughts on the Athenians

[Vantha]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I've desired this for a long time. A decade.

I know. I'm currently working on too many other things to implement it myself, but if anyone does (preferably without an LLM) I would be happy to review and merge it. I suppose the main question is where and how big to display each of the names.

[Emacz]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I've desired this for a long time. A decade.

Couldn't you do that through a "mixin"?

[Thalatta]

1 hour ago, Emacz said:

Couldn't you do that through a "mixin"?

I think the point could be to keep selectable options limited and uniform among civs, while allowing for actual differentiation and evolution if wanted. I've come across this issue so many times, and one has to end anachronistically simplify things, which could indeed be solved if "a unit can represent more than just the soldiers equipped in the exact same way".

For example, the Athenians had hippotoxotai (cavalry archers) substituted by prodromoi ("scouts") in the first half of the 4th c. BC. With the proposal, both could appear, depending on progress, but the icon, or just the "generic" name, could be the same, and quite common for most civs (Mounted Skirmisher could be an option), but the actual model would change (among civs and with progress), have different stats, and the "particular" unit name also be written somewhere, but the "generic" name would tell you basically its function. Other examples I came across just this last week is that Alexander's mounted skirmishers went from javelineers to archers, and his prodromoi apparently from javelineers to lancers. And I guess it would simplify dealing with things like the Roman Army.

Spoiler

Some of this was going to be mentioned in Part II, but now it's here. Regarding Alexander's prodromoi, after treating them as skirmishers for some time, "this last mention of prodromoi by Arrian creates something of a problem. The alternate name for them, sarissophoroi", "lancers comprising prodromoi", "Arrian usually distinguishes between Paeonians and prodromoi, but that could be no more than an effort to distinguish ethnic from Macedonian prodromoi, since the prodromoi/sarissophoroi are generally considered to be Macedonian", "possibility that prodromoi was used as 'a generic term for light cavalry.' I would substitute skirmishers for light", all from Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World, by R. E. Gaebel.

 

Regarding mixins, if you can irreversibly upgrade them such that they also change in the buildings that produce them, and show also their "particular" name somewhere, maybe it could work, but those working on it would have a better understanding on why it wouldn't.

[Emacz]

Well the game already does it for "hoplites" they have a mixin that allows all hoplites to have phalanx formation.

  <Identity>

    <Classes datatype="tokens">Hoplite</Classes>

      <Tooltip>Hoplites can use phalanx formation</Tooltip>

      <History>Hoplites were the very symbol of Hellenic prestige and citizenship, armed with a spear and a large round bronze-coated shield known as an aspis. Armor was heavy, with bronze helmets and a cuirass of either bronze or linen, in addition to greaves. Hoplites fought in a tight formation called a phalanx, guarding each other with their shields while they attacked the enemy with their 2.5 meter spear or short iron sword.</History>

     </Identity>

just add a visable class

 

  <Identity>

    <VisibleClasses datatype="tokens">Athenian</VisibleClasses>

    <Tooltip>A true citizen of Athens.</Tooltip>

  </Identity>

[Emacz]

9 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

For example, the Athenians had hippotoxotai (cavalry archers) substituted by prodromoi ("scouts") in the first half of the 4th c. BC. With the proposal, both could appear, depending on progress, but the icon, or just the "generic" name, could be the same, and quite common for most civs (Mounted Skirmisher could be an option), but the actual model would change (among civs and with progress), have different stats, and the "particular" unit name also be written somewhere, but the "generic" name would tell you basically its function. Other examples I came across just this last week is that Alexander's mounted skirmishers went from javelineers to archers, and his prodromoi apparently from javelineers to lancers. And I guess it would simplify dealing with things like the Roman Army.

You could check out what we did with  <SpecificName>Hastātus</SpecificName> for rome.  My understanding is early on they were similar to hoplites in kits and then they evolved into swordsmen.  So in p1 Hastatus = spearman and then it is replaced in p2 by Hastatus = swordsman

infantry_swordsman_b.xml infantry_spearman_b.xml

[Thalatta]

1 hour ago, Emacz said:

So in p1 Hastatus = spearman and then it is replaced in p2 by Hastatus = swordsman

Do you also have triarii units? I guess that could be useful not to just lose spearmen.

[Emacz]

48 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

Do you also have triarii units? I guess that could be useful not to just lose spearmen.

Yes, which is why I have told you to at least look at the mod  wether it be download and the structure tree, or just on github its self.

[Thalatta]

5 hours ago, Emacz said:

Yes, which is why I have told you to at least look at the mod  wether it be download and the structure tree, or just on github its self.

I haven't even looked at the Romans in vanilla yet 

[Ultimate Aurelian]

On 16/09/2026 at 9:25 AM, Emacz said:

I have thought about some of these things for Classical Warfare AEA. Was easy with Sparta, we classified them as helots and changed their stats a bit.  The question for Athens (and I would think Thebes too?)  If we were to lower their cost, how do we "penalize/balance"?  Say a Javelineer for greeks was only 30 wood (20% cheaper overal)  The Javelin would probably still do the same "dmg" right? It wasn't like they used weaker, less effective javelins?
And we have "Athenian Peltasts" and "Boiotian Pelatasts" along with the Theracian merc.

I know in some cases poorer troops used wood javelins hardened with fire but not sure this was the case with Greeks.

Less accuracy would be the best way to portray the difference in troop quality, if it's not possible i guess less damage and less range is good enough.

They could also have less HP (lighter equipment, less morale, less trained in melee combat).

Edited September 22 by Ultimate Aurelian

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

On 21/09/2026 at 8:08 AM, Emacz said:

Couldn't you do that through a "mixin"?

No, it requires some new lines of UI code. I'm talking about having 3 different display names for each unit, and then the player could customize which two (or one) they want displayed:

SpecificName

GenericName 

ClassName 

This is different from the class system. 

 

So:

Hoplites Athanaios 

Athenian Hoplite

Spear Infantry

 

We could rename these elements if we wanted to:

EthnicName (in ancient Greek, ancient Germanic, ancient Latin, et al.)

LocalizedName (the translation based on your selected language, the same as the old "generic" name)

RoleName (so, Archer Infantry, Skirmish Cavalry, etc.)

I honestly wouldn't show all 3 in the HUD at once, but let the player decide which 2 or 1. We here could choose what the best default is, but let the player change it after that. We could show all 3 in the Unit Viewer tho. 

[Emacz]

10 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

No, it requires some new lines of UI code. I'm talking about having 3 different display names for each unit, and then the player could customize which two (or one) they want displayed:

SpecificName

GenericName 

ClassName 

This is different from the class system. 

 

So:

Hoplites Athanaios 

Athenian Hoplite

Spear Infantry

 

We could rename these elements if we wanted to:

EthnicName (in ancient Greek, ancient Germanic, ancient Latin, et al.)

LocalizedName (the translation based on your selected language, the same as the old "generic" name)

RoleName (so, Archer Infantry, Skirmish Cavalry, etc.)

I honestly wouldn't show all 3 in the HUD at once, but let the player decide which 2 or 1. We here could choose what the best default is, but let the player change it after that. We could show all 3 in the Unit Viewer tho. 

Ah ok that makes sense. Yes when using mixin it does get a little overwhelming with all the different info in there.

[Emacz]

31 minutes ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

I know in some cases poorer troops used wood javelins hardened with fire but not sure this was the case with Greeks.

Less accuracy would be the best way to portray the difference in troop quality, if it's not possible i guess less damage and less range is good enough.

They could also have less HP (lighter equipment, less morale, less trained in melee combat).

This is what we did with heltos:

Helots have 25% less range, wider spread, and 10% less damage than normal citizen infantry, but the same gather rates as civilians. They have 75 HP and cost only 40 food and 10 wood or stone. They do not receive forge techs.
But yes it doesn't make as much since for other Greek citizens fighters since they were still free citizens.  Maybe their ranged units should just take a little longer to promote than other ranged units.  And then when you combine that with hoplite tradition, you realize their infantry, hoplites in particular are a little move "valued" in their eyes.

[Ultimate Aurelian]

2 minutes ago, Emacz said:

This is what we did with heltos:

Helots have 25% less range, wider spread, and 10% less damage than normal citizen infantry, but the same gather rates as civilians. They have 75 HP and cost only 40 food and 10 wood or stone. They do not receive forge techs.
But yes it doesn't make as much since for other Greek citizens fighters since they were still free citizens.  Maybe their ranged units should just take a little longer to promote than other ranged units.  And then when you combine that with hoplite tradition, you realize their infantry, hoplites in particular are a little move "valued" in their eyes.

For slingers you could for sure give the elite ones with lead/clay bullets more damage and range than militia or tribal units with stone projectiles (EB2 does this).

 

Any more skilled unit would also probably fire a bit faster.

Does this game have accuracy mechanic? i think some of the Scythians in the DE mod dodged projectiles at least.

Edited September 22 by Ultimate Aurelian

[Emacz]

1 minute ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

For slingers you could for sure give the elite ones with lead/clay bullets more damage and range than militia or tribal units with stonbe projectiles (EB2 does this).

 

Ay more skilled unit would also probably fire a bit faster.

We already have two types of sligners.  Regular stone and lead bullets.  And Baleric and Rhodian have their own boost based off those parent tempaltes.

[Vantha]

37 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

No, it requires some new lines of UI code. I'm talking about having 3 different display names for each unit, and then the player could customize which two (or one) they want displayed:

By the way, there's no issue on Gitea for this yet as far as I'm aware. Would you mind opening one?

[Thalatta]

I edited Part I to deal better with sources (first hidden bit now), and renamed the Delian League civ bonus Naucrary instead of Trierarchy, which could be another tech now. In this part I'm refining a few things regarding infantry and cavalry from Part I, but I'll deal mostly with siege engines. Most things are just name changes or design corrections, although for siege techs, compatibility with other civs would need to be checked (for those cases, in the meantime this is just meant as a record of sourced proposals). Part III will be about naval combat.

 

PART II

Spoiler

Sources:

-On Machines, Athenaeus Mechanicus.

-The Horsemen of Athens, by G. R. Bugh.

-Ancient Catapults: Some Hypotheses Reexamined, by D. B. Campbell.

-Armies of the Hellenistic States 323 BC to AD 30, by G. Esposito.

-Ancient Greek Warship 500-322 BC, by N. Fields.

-Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World, by R. E. Gaebel.

-The Age of the Galley, Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times, by R. Gardiner.

-Belopoiiká, by Heron of Alexandria.

-The Oxford Classical Dictionary, by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth.

-The Inswinging Theory, by A. Iriarte.

-Artillery, An Illustrated History of its Impact, by J. Kinard.

-Greek and Roman Artillery, by E. W. Mardsen.

-Belopoiiká, by Philon of Bizantium.

-The Athenian Army 507-322 BC, by N. Sekunda.

-Greek and Roman Technology, A. N. Sherwood.

 

If the author is not stated, most probably it's from either:

-Greek and Roman Artillery, 399 BC-AD 363, by D. B. Campbell.

-Greek and Roman Siege Machinery, 399 BC-AD 363, by D. B. Campbell.

 

Things that should be:

-Lithobólos (Siege Catapult) should be Lithobolos (Stone Thrower): accents should be removed, as per 0 A.D. nomenclature guidelines (most of the time I'll ignore this, but it should be followed). The present name, besides not being the correct translation, is misleading for the period, given that both bolt shooters and stone throwers were katapeltikon (throw against, basically), or catapults. Actually, in this period, "catapult" is even more often used for bolt shooters, being the first to be invented, and "ballista" used for stone throwers. The name inversion more familiar to everyone started after the 2nd c. A.D.

Spoiler

"Ballistae is a term normally used for artillery that hurls stones, while catapults were loaded with bolts", from Sherwood.

"At some time during the period from A.D. 100 to 300, a change occurred in the system of nomenclature. Thus, in the fourth century A.D., catapulta indicates a one-armed stone-throwing engine, while ballista means a piece of artillery which shoots bolts only", from Mardsen.

-The Lithobolos torsion-springs shouldn't look like spirals: this makes no physical sense. Although there are a few ancient representations that also portray them incorrectly, there are plenty of representations around showing their correct appearance.

Spoiler

How it's in the game right now:

How it should be:

-The Arsenal should be called Workshop: arsenals were where various equipment was stored, while "workshop" is used in the literature for what this building is supposed to be.

Spoiler

"set up workshops to build siege-engines", from Mardsen, which he uses many times, and could quote what arsenals are from plenty of books, but it's too obvious.

 

Things that could be:

-Athenians could charge when closing in on an attack: that is, be faster, louder and more disorderly than Spartans (stance depending), considering how heavy infantry charged at Marathon, and how psiloi "charged" at Sphacteria. I think it's funny that the caricaturesque static posture of the Spartans in the movie 300 and "shock combat" of the Athenians in the sequel could appear in the game in a less exaggerated way, while having some reported merit to it.

Spoiler

At Sphacteria "the shouting of the Athenians as they charged caused consternation among the Spartans, who were accustomed to fighting in near-silence", since usually Spartans hoplites "advanced slowly and to the accompaniment of flutes (auloi) as was customary; this accompaniment kept the Spartans in step and in order", from M. Dahm.

-Epilektos (City Guard) could be Athēnaios Epilektos (Chosen Athenian, or less literally and keeping the present idea, Athenian Guard): just renaming them to make them more characteristically Athenian (there are units named similarly after all). It's not just about the name: Athens' Hellenistic infantry relied heavily on mercenaries, except for some elite volunteer hoplites, which seems to differentiate them a bit from epilektoi from other city-states. I thought about Epilektos Ethelontis (Chosen Volunteer), but I didn't want to give the impression that that made up term is an attested one (sometimes one has no choice).

Spoiler

"After defeat in the Lamian War, the Athenian Army was strongly reduced in its numbers and started to be composed almost entirely of mercenaries. The latter were supplemented by a few volunteer citizens who decided to serve as full-time soldiers; these were known as epilektoi and formed a sort of military elite", from Esposito. This is the only instance of the word "volunteer" in that book, while "epilektoi" also appears for Boeotia, the Aetolian League, the Macedonians, the Seleucids, and Ptolemaic Egypt (as "Machimoi Epilektoi", who were included in the "Ptolemaic Royal Guard").

-Hippeús (Greek Cavalryman) could be Athēnaios Hippeus (Athenian Cavalryman), and be a lancer: gameplay seems to have resulted in too many things being exactly the other way around as they should be. Athenians avoided getting way too close with cavalry (they would have swords anyway, but usually as secondary or tertiary weapons, after javelins and lance), those tactics came later with the Macedonians (possibly after the Thebans), who in turn have no cavalry swordsmen in the game!

Spoiler

'Athenian representations of cavalrymen from the first third of the 4th century (...) depict cavalrymen equipped with a combination of two javelins and a distinctively long combat spear", "the spear must have been rather unwieldy when used against enemy cavalry, against whom the two javelins would be used in preference", and "in a number of the ancient Greek lexica, kamax is listed alongside other words for spear and is defined as 'a cavalry spear' or a 'straight pike'", while to fight cavalry "by the second quarter of the century the traditional cavalry spear had been replaced by another model, called a xyston, or 'whittled' spear. It was used by the Macedonian cavalry at the battle of the Granicus in 334", from Sekunda.

"Greek cavalry of this period almost certainly lacked nerve, a fearless, aggressive mentality that was essential if horsemen were to engage in close combat with spear and sword. Such qualities do not seem to have been common among cavalrymen until the rise of Macedon under Philip", from Gaebel.

-Pródromos (Cavalry Javelineer) could be Athēnaios Prodromos (Athenian Scout): I ended deciding for this name instead of Hippakontistēs (Cavalry Javelineer) since that's not actually attested (but for tournament situations, and after all, most cavalry were expected to use javelins). Although to be prodromos is more of a role that goes beyond just literally scouting, this is also how the corps is referred to (like saying that the Boy Scouts are scouts and more), and they are not mentioned that often for others except Macedonians (being later referred as lancers, as I've quoted before).

Spoiler

"The prodromoi or 'scouts' were a branch of the Athenian cavalry", from Sekunda.

"Sometime between 395 and the 360s, the Athenians apparently decided to abolish the corps of mounted bowmen and replace them with more traditionally equipped hippeis called prodromoi, 'front-runners' literally, who functioned as skirmishers and perhaps scouts", from Bugh.

-Tachunautousa Triērēs (Swift Sailing Trireme) could be an early remarkable ramming ship: it could be less literally and more helpfully translated as "Swift Ramming Trireme". The tachunautousai were the top trireme rating, strongly associated with Athens, for which ramming was their preferred tactic, although also rendered somewhat ineffective by the Hellenistic period, as will be explained in Part III. Their garrison should be reduced, or even completely removed while increasing their population cost to account for optimal performance at all times, which is one of the reasons I proposed somewhere else to extend champions to ships and siege engines.

Spoiler

Regarding Athens, "the triremes stationed in each of the three naval harbours were divided into four ratings: 'firsts', 'seconds', 'thirds', and 'select'. The latter, also called tachunautousai, 'fast-sailing', were lightly built, especially agile craft used on special missions such as spearheading surprise attacks in formal battles, or running down the ravenous packs of pirates. Together with the 'firsts' they formed the cream of the fleet. Next to them came the amply serviceable 'seconds'. The Athenians were thoroughly mindful of keeping their ships properly maintained and repaired", from Gardiner.

"There were two main methods of fighting, which placed contradictory demands on trireme design. The first was ramming, which called for the smallest possible ship built around the largest number of oarsmen. Using a minimum number of marines, the Athenian navy followed this philosophy. The second method was boarding, which required larger, heavier ships capable of carrying the maximum number of boarders", from Fields.

"Athens' light triremes had carried only 14 or so marines, and even the heavier triremes limited themselves to 30 or 40".

-The Oxybelēs is being represented by an early tension design: the oxybelēs would soon use a torsion mechanism mid-4th century B.C., looking like the present Lithobolos, which would completely supersede the tension design by the end of the 3rd century B.C., according to Mardsen. A further advancement would be the Polybolos, which had a magazine to increase shooting rate (could be just a tech).

-The Lithobolos is being represented by a dubious design: this is still quite the controversy, but extremely illuminating, and could be used to differentiate units better. Regarding Roman terms, "the Greek bolt-shooting euthytone thus became the catapulta, and the stone-throwing palintone, the Ballista", from Kinard. Campbell and others state similar things, but what palintone exactly means is still debated: initially in his book he takes the conservative position that it had just to do with the orientation of the springs (hard to see in a game), and was a bigger version, necessary to more slowly transfer energy to somewhat equivalently worthy heavier stones. But a few years later (2011), Campbell takes the "French" position (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307732119_The_inswinging_theory, by Iriarte), stating that "this solution, at once etymologically elegant and strikingly logical, has come to be known as 'the inswinging theory,' in which the catapult arms point forward when at rest, and are drawn inward during the spanning process", even claiming, when later discussing the onager, that "as in the case of the Hellenistic stone-projector, a brilliantly perceptive French design was sidelined by inferior German and English versions". Figures 3 and 4 in https://sciences.gloubik.info/spip.php?article1600 show both configurations clearly. In addition, palintones would eventually shoot heavy bolts (by changing their sliders), being a more powerful, although complicated, configuration.

Spoiler

Thus, the units being used right now could represent the tension and torsion oxybelēs only, while the (always torsion) lithobolos could be represented like this:

And a later bigger version of this one could switch between large stones and arrows. None of this is to say that things were only this way, but the position that most catapults followed these designs seems to make more sense and is gaining adherents.

-Advanced Siege could be Lepides Sidērai (Iron Plates): the present name doesn't say anything, and it was really tricky to connect how the Lithobolos and Ram crush damage could even increase with the same tech, but regarding stone-throwers I read "Heron advises iron-plating any points of stress on the machine", from Campbell, and remembered that his other book stated "it is assumed that the vulnerable tip would have been reinforced with iron plating" regarding later rams. I've found critical point iron-plating references on many manuals while searching for something else.

Spoiler

I extracted, used the nominative (not sure if correctly or if I missed that on other names) and transliterated "iron plates" from "λεπίδας σιδηρᾶς ἐπιθεῖναι καὶ ἥλοις συνκοινοῦν", which translates as "to attach iron plates and fasten them together with nails", from Heron (but an Ancient Greek speaker should check my take).

-Siegecraft could be Organopoioi (Mechanicians): also doesn't say absolutely anything. For a construction time bonus, "the art of those who construct the siege machines necessary for war (organopoioi), they too are termed mechanicians", from Sherwood.

-Armour Plating could be Argai Byrsai (Raw Hides): to differentiate it better from the Iron Plates proposal, and many recommend for protection and fire-proofing for the big engines over iron-cladding because of weight.

Spoiler

"The whole machine was covered with rawhide as a defence against fire", "padded with wool-stuffed rawhide, like mattresses, to absorb the shock of enemy artillery fire", "the machine was protected by padded rawhide, which would certainly have been a lighter and less costly means of fireproofing" (although Campbell thinks Vitruvius is mistaken regarding his description), "Athenaeus prescribes an overall cushion of rawhide, padded with seaweed vinegar-soaked chaff, both to absorb the impact of missiles and as a defence against fire", "Vegetius advises those opposing a siege tower to strip off the rawhide, whereupon the machine would be vulnerable to burning", from Campbell.
I extracted the nominative and transliterated "raw hides" comparing "ἀργαῖς βύρσαις" with "with unworked hides", from Athenaeus (but an Ancient Greek speaker should check my take).

-Military Engineers could be Aphaireta Merē (Detachable Parts): to facilitate dismantling and transportation, as recommended in many Artillery Manuals (Belopoiika), this being another of my candidate names for this tech. I also wanted to leave more open the possible addition of Mēchanikoi (Engineers) units to build certain big siege engines in the field, as many have proposed in the past.

Spoiler

I extracted and transliterated "detachable parts" comparing "Γίνεται δὲ τὰ πλείστα μέρη τοῦ παντὸς ὀργάνου ἀφαιρετά" with "Most parts of the complete engine are removable", from Heron (but an Ancient Greek speaker should check my take).

-Bolt Accuracy could be Odontōtai Choinikides (Toothed Washers): again, the present name handwaves how exactly that would even be achieved. Washers are the discs through where the cords are threaded, their stability being important for consistent aim. To lock them, "teeth" were used after some point, and this was further developed with pin-holes (Trypētai Choinikides (Perforated Washers) could be an additional tech for more siege-oriented civs). I made up these names because these details appear only in archaeology, I think.

Spoiler

When talking about bolt-shooters, "the main characteristic of the torsion catapult was the set of four bronze washers (choinikides), which sat in the spring-frame". "It is the style of locking device that shows the clearest development", going from "ratchet teeth" "probably designed to lock with a pair of pawls", "later adapted by cutting four rectangular notches", "to stop the washer turning", followed by "an altogether more trustworthy locking method" "perforated with a series of pin-holes", from Cambell.

-Naval Oxybeles could be Marine Catapult, but better if just removed: since not only the oxybeles was used, and to use the same terminology used by Morrison, and not just the same name as in Age of Mythology. Actually I disagree with having this tech at all, one should just have catapults mounted on heavier warships (explained in the coming Part III).

 

Things that could also be considered:

-Conscription at the Stable could also be Sitos (Fodder Allowance) or Katastasis (Establishment Grant): better alternatives to what was proposed in Part I, since the Hippeia (Cavalry Class) appeared in the early 6th c. B.C. (before the start of the game), while these are part of 5th c. B.C. Athenian cavalry reforms.

Spoiler

"abandonment of military conscription by the Athenians at the end of the fourth century", from Bugh.

"The cavalry, like the hoplites, were not paid a regular wage, but unlike the hoplites they were given a daily fodder allowance (sitos) of one drachma in times of peace or war alike. The expansion of the cavalry was facilitated by the introduction of the katastasis or 'establishment grant', which the Athenian cavalryman received upon joining the corps", from Sekunda.

"the state still continued to support them with the system of katastasis and the sitos allowances", from Bugh.

-Eleusinia Mystēria (Eleusinian Mysteries), could be a civ bonus: this was an important panhellenic religious cult, and under Athenian control. Temples could give a food trickle, have improved healing aura, or produce units faster, for example, whatever makes sense.

Spoiler

"The modal form, the Eleusinian mysteries, was a full and regular part of Athenian civic cult from the late 6th cent. BC, institutionalizing many aspects of religious aspiration". "Corn also symbolized the recurring cycle of vegetation in the Eleusinian mysteries but acquired moral and political overtones after 600 BC under Orphic influence and after the annexation of Eleusis by Athens", and "at the Eleusinian Mysteries aparchai of wheat and barley are requested of all Athenians, allies, and even other Greeks", from Hornblower and Spawforth.

-An alternative approach to techs: in https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/34903-civ-spartans/page/3/#comment-760784 there was some discussion regarding techs unlocking units, and I ran into this "necessity" when trying to make sense of catapult evolution and how the game presently works, given that engines would look quite different after certain developments. An alternative approach would be to have some techs changing units (besides the usual techs improving them and the less common unlocking them). For siege engines, one would start with the Gastraphetēs, and then the Tension Oxybelēs (as they are right now). After researching a Torsion Springs tech, the Tension Oxybelēs would change to the Torsion Oxybelēs (which should look like a small Lithobolos), and the Lithobolos would be unlocked (which should use the French palintone design previously discussed). Later on the Polybolos (with magazine) could appear (either as an Oxybelēs change or unit unlock), and a final Heavy Catapult could later be unlocked (larger but slower) that could change between large stones and arrows. I know it seems too much, but I'm mentioning it for the sake of catapult clarity and completeness (and for whoever wants to implement things like these in their mod).

 

Other information that might be useful:

(All quotes from Sekunda).

-Torch-Races for infantry speed bonuses: "we have evidence for three ephebic torch-races before the reform of the ephēbeia in 335, connected with the festivals of Prometheus, Hephaistos and Pan".

-I think somewhere I mentioned Athenians would use "A" or "ATH" as shield devices, there's also evidence for an eye, a gorgon, a star and a laurel wreath.

Spoiler

"Around the middle of the 5th century, it became fashionable to paint an 'apotropaic' eye on the shield, to look out for incoming missiles", and "numerous references are made to the gorgoneion shield device on Lamachus' shield", although depictions of the gorgoneion shield device are rather rare in Athenian vase-paintings", "around the middle of the 5th century, hoplite shield devices become confined to a narrow range of symbols, a star or a laurel wreath being the favourites".

-Ephippios (Saddlecloth), Af'Hippou Akuntizonti (Mounted Javelin-Throwing) and Aphippolampada (Mounted Torch-Race) techs to improve cavalry: by 500 B.C. Athens didn't have yet a navy, nor proper cavalry, these were developments from the 5th c. BC. I like the idea of having lots of techs, for the player to think what to choose given different situations, otherwise everything devolves into mindless build/research order memorisation, or worse, just clicking what's affordable. Both should be penalised for a more strategic gameplay. These early techs should make Athens cavalry fast and accurate among Greeks early on, the problem is that the game is quite fast and by the mid game the Thebans, and later the Macedonians, should have better cavalry. In any case, this might be useful at some point for some.

Spoiler

"Proper saddles only came into use in the Roman period, but prior to that the saddlecloth (ephippios) had gradually come into use, at first in the Achaemenid Empire, and then among the Greeks and the other peoples that were living near it", while "Alcibiades, fond of luxury and extravagance, was living ahead of his time in acquiring these saddlecloths". Also "the competition called 'javelin-throwing from horseback' (af'hippou akuntizonti) is mentioned by Xenophon (Hipp.1.26) and in an inscription dating to the early 4th century" and "in the autumn of 413 might be the occasion on which the mounted torch-race (aphippolampada) at the Bendideia was introduced, and it could also be when the 'javelin-throwing from horseback' competition was introduced into the Panathenaic Games", although "the mounted torch-race may not long have survived".

-"In Athens, a slave society, it was normal for an individual citizen of sufficient wealth to serve as a hoplite and to have his own personal slave. In time of war, the slave would carry the hoplite’s bedding and rations for him. Usually referred to as skeuophoroi, or 'baggage carriers' in our texts, the slaves would participate in the battle only if an unusual opportunity arose. Their essential role was recognized by the Athenian state".

-It's good to bear in mind that, after a few decades where heavy armour seemed to be less common, "in the 360s, Athenian funerary reliefs start to show hoplites wearing muscle-cuirasses and 'Phrygian' helmets", "muscle-cuirass is universal, but there is a large diversity in the arrangement of the groin-flaps and the shape of the shoulder-guards", "some type of enabling legislation must have existed to force the adoption of the muscle-cuirass on the Athenian citizenry who served in the infantry".

-"I imagine that the Athenian cavalry had adopted the Boeotian helmet by 362, and this was the reason why the Theban horse who opposed them at the battle of Mantineia painted their helmets white to identify themselves".

 

@Arup, as the self proclaimed biggest worshipper of Athena, let us know what do you think is more worth considering regarding gameplay (although most of my proposals are just renames or design corrections, I think). I guess some points would change how the Athenians actually play, but I think they should be a fairly fast civ for Greek standards, with their decent early cavalry skirmishers, other missile support and swift ramming ships, while also having a solid infantry that, according to the stories, would make a sprint for it if needed. Right now I find it confusingly sword heavy, since neither the Marines nor Sword Cavalry correspond to anything realistic for them, while an eventual lack of swords would balance better with their Long Walls (and swords are really needed, maybe the Athenian Guard could switch between spear and sword, or better, the Iphicratean Hoplite proposed in Part I could switch between long-spear/proto-pike and sword).

Edited Monday at 18:18 by Thalatta

[Arup]

@Thalatta I assume you are talking about delenda right? since the vanilla doesn't have... like, half of these things in the first place. other than that,yes these are mostly name or design changes and personally, I don't mind it either way, especially the designs... it's good that you can point it out but I'm not sure someone is willing to create brand new designs for one of the oldest civs in the game... I do have something to say abt the few balance changes I could see:

no, under no circumstances should a mini ram boat be made. we already know what is happening with the scout ship. this mini ram ship will be the new ultimate spam. just, no.

 

that temple bonus you were talking about... yes, I'm always up for something to make each civ more unique! perhaps the temple could get a tech that increases their radius and/or increases their heal per second. ah and, Chosen Athenian sounds a soo much cooler than "city guard" lol i definitely want to see that change 

Edited September 26 by Arup

[Thalatta]

Just now, Arup said:

@Thalatta I assume you are talking about delenda right? since the vanilla doesn't have... like, half of these things in the first place

Corrections of what is wrongly done in vanilla should apply to vanilla.

Changes of what is not quite accurate in vanilla would also ideally apply to it, after gameplay considerations.

Additions of what vanilla doesn't have in the first place could of course be considered, or just left as mod material. I tend to mention interesting or important things I come across, independently of any gameplay considerations (that part I leave to others).

[Thalatta]

43 minutes ago, Arup said:

no, under no circumstances should a mini ram boat be made. we already know what is happening with the scout ship. this mini ram ship will be the new ultimate spam.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mini", it wouldn't be actually "smaller", but "lighter". It should be the same as current ramming ships, but faster (thus maybe deal more damage), while taking more time and resources to produce, and have less garrison slots (all aligned with what was an attested Athenian advantage). Surely these things can be changed to something that's champion level but not OP? There's that idea of no garrison slots at all and to categorise such machines as "champion", to give a clear indication that they are full-time combatants, not really transport.

 

43 minutes ago, Arup said:

were talking about... yes, I'm always up for something to make each civ more unique! perhaps the temple could get a tech that increases their radius and/or increases their heal per second.

Indeed, radius increase and/or healing per second is a good choice, considering how influential that was.

 

43 minutes ago, Arup said:

Chosen Athenian sounds a soo much cooler than "city guard" lol i definitely want to see that change 

Yeah, "City Guard" sounds like a guy lighting up street lamps at night... Chosen Athenian seems the strongest contender, and closer to what's attested.

[ThePoshBarbarian]

I would still argue that athens unit tree should still include slinger, but they're only recruitable from the civic center, are cheaper than most other slingers, but are far weaker because of their cheapness (less range, slower movement, lower damage, or other choices). In essence psiloi. My other suggestion would be if slinger psiloi do become implemented, they should not be able to level up, though I feel this would be more of a gameplay balance sort of choice rather than an actual historical one.

[Perzival12]

On 26/9/2026 at 1:02 PM, Thalatta said:

Yeah, "City Guard" sounds like a guy lighting up street lamps at night... Chosen Athenian seems the strongest contender, and closer to what's attested.

Chosen Athenian sounds a bit strange tho, maybe “Chosen of Athena”? Same meaning, but reorganized name.

[Thalatta]

1 hour ago, Perzival12 said:

Chosen Athenian sounds a bit strange tho, maybe “Chosen of Athena”? Same meaning, but reorganized name.

But it loses the attested meaning, you imply the goddess chose them, I'm just saying they are picked troops

 

[Thalatta]

This (in principle last) part is mostly about Mediterranean ships. Both "Arrow Ships" (which were never a thing) and "Ramming Ships" are redundantly named Triērēs Athēnaia, so I'll propose a more interesting and realistic but simple naval scheme, taking into account the eventual implementation of boarding, and representing important ships used at the time. The proposals come after summarising what's relevant, followed by some details that could eventually be useful.

 

PART III

Spoiler

Sources:

-Dipnosophistarum Libri XV, by Athenaeus of Naucratis.

-The Introduction of the Ram as a Weapon in Ancient Sea Warfare, by N. Fawcett.

-Ancient Greek Warship 500-322 BC, by N. Fields.

-The Age of the Galley, Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times, by R. Gardiner.

-Ships and Sea-power Before the Great Persian War, The Ancestry of the Ancient Trireme, by H. T. Wallinga.

 

If the author is not stated, most probably it's from either:

-Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, by L. Casson.

-Greek and Roman Oared Warships, 399-30 B.C., by J. S. Morrison.

 

Consulted but not quoted, I think:

-The Age of Titans, the Rise and Fall of the Great Hellenistic Navies, by W. M. Murray.

-Hellenistic Naval Warfare and Warships, 336-30 BC, by M. Pitassi.

 

General summary:

-Beginning: by 500 BC, warships with one level/bank like the eikosoros (20 oarsmen, 15 m long), triakontoros/triaconters (30 oarsmen, 25 m long) and pentēkontoros/penteconters (50 oarsmen, 40 m long) had been used for centuries as transport ships, the rowers being the troops themselves. Galleys started undecked, with "a scant deck forward for the lookout and a slightly larger one aft", and "the only specifically naval weapon known was the grappling iron", since "ships grappled one another to let their marines have it out on the decks with bow, sword, or pike". Naval rams, and as a consequence for more power, two levels (with specialised rowers but less troops) and later three levels, appeared between 1000 BC and 500 BC, when earlier types became mostly obsolete. Between 7th to the 4th centuries BC the trireme was the main warship, and penteconters became fast auxiliaries for scouting and skirmishing. Other types of ships were the smaller-than-pentekontoros ploia makra (long vessels), "special" galleys like the Samia/Samaina (wider, from Samos), myoparones (at least from used by the Carthaginians), among other ones.

Spoiler

"When the second level of oars was introduced, the hold was sacrificed to add power", from Gardiner.

"The objective now was not to transport the maximum number of men to the scene of action on land but to keep the manpower the same but halve the length of the ship, the target to be rammed", from Fawcett.

The ram "triggered the development of a powerful type of war galley with raised deck and screened sides", converting them into "cataphract ships", in contraposition to the preceding "aphracts", bringing "into being a more powerful vessel, this inevitably led to attempts to improve speed and maneuverability, and the result was the two-banked warship. By 700 B.C., such craft" was "fitted with raised decking over the centerline to carry a fighting contingent". Regarding the trireme, "by about 600 B.C., fleets outside of Greece had taken up the new craft. Yet, during the next half century, the penteconter, presumably the two-banked version, continued to serve as the ship of the line. Finally, toward the end of the sixth century B.C., the new warship, which far outclassed its predecessor, came into its own". "The penteconter vanished from the major fleets: there were but nine at Artemisium and four at Salamis", except for "lesser nations" ("no way of telling whether these were the original single-banked or the later two-level version"), from Casson.

A ship with two levels "would be perhaps half the length of its single-banked sister", and "would inevitably boast a hull that was more robust, more seaworthy, and that offered a good deal less of a target to an enemy ram". It was a Phoenician invention, a century before Greece. Not known if it's the same for rams (Phoenician ones "are distinctively cone-shaped"). "When Herodotus and Thucydides assume the penteconter to have been the standard ship of the line until the arrival of the trireme, they surely have the two-banked version in mind", from Casson.

-Classification: the number of oar levels would define if a ship is monokrotos, dikrotos or trikrotos, and the amount of oarsmen per file (transversal cut) per side would define if a ship is monērēs/monoreme, diērēs/bireme (twos), triērēs/trireme (threes), tetrērēs/quadrireme (fours), and so on, where I used Greek/Latin (and a common shortening). From bottom up, the levels were called thalamian, zygian and thranite. "Diērēs" and "trikrotos" weren't proper navy terms since each had many types: there wasn't a specific "diērēs", and each "trikotos" was specified. Fours were usually dikrotos, as were eights or nines and above. Ships being aphract or cataphract means they are undecked or decked (later taken as "boxed-in"), respectively. A ship is anasteiros if their main ram is above the waterline, "a characteristic of the bigger warships (fives or sixes and above)" "to pierce and hold the ships attacked so that the decksoldiers could board and capture them".

Spoiler

Dikrotos ships were "faster, stronger and more shock-resistant than its single-banked sister and 'offered a good deal less of a target to an enemy ram'", and "until that time they will have travelled in the ordinary (monokrotos) galley of some twenty to twenty eight oars, but now, to accommodate more men on board (and to use them at the oars as far as possible), they mounted dikrotos oarage. This not only doubled the capacity of the ships to transport men, but also added to their fighting power by increasing their speed and improved the quality of the marines", although "Corinth, and the poleis in general, introduced the second bank of oars to increase the speed of its ships, not their transport capacity", from Wallinga.

"There was never a dieres in Greek and Roman navies, since no 'two-fitted' vessel of fixed specifications ever existed. Two-level penteconters, two-level triaconters, and other craft rowed in bireme fashion" "were called dikrotos 'two-banked'", "trikrotos, on the other hand, never occurs as an official navy term since there was no need for it: there were no three-banked warships outside of the trieres or others of fixed specifications in the -eres series".

"It is unlikely that an aphract ship with a ram could take part in a formal naumachias as a ship of the line", "the need for what amounted to armoured decks could have been a significant factor in encouraging the development of heavier ships", from Morrison.

"Cataphract thus came to be a term covering in the larger ships decking and possibly also the permanent boxing-in with louvres which succeeded the upper and lower temporary protective gear. Of the smaller and lighter cataphracts some threes and some of the others were decked but not boxed-in although they would have had removable screens", and at least sometimes, implementing these modifications "belonged to the commander rather than the shipbuilder", from Morrison.

-Tactics: as mentioned, by 500 BC ramming would have replaced boarding as the preferred tactic for many (like the Athenians, Carthaginians or Rhodians). Warships wouldn't usually sink, but "swamp", because of their positive buoyancy, disabling them (sometimes their crews would keep fighting), but leaving the possibility for towing them. As ships became sturdier, boarding took precedence again (through the Macedonians and Romans, for example). Catapults started being used on ships around the start of the Hellenistic period, being also used against them from land. Ships from fives to tens could include towers for missiles (small towers can be found attested for smaller ships). Regarding formations and movements, there's epi keras (line ahead), "the normal formation for ships on passage", metopēdon (line abreast), "a formation which it would not be easy to maintain on a voyage", diekplus (breakthrough), periplous (outflanking), and to defend against these, kyklos (circle), these last three shown in the diagram below, and stolos (crescent-shape), "with the bigger ships on the wings" "to prevent the enemy from making a breakthrough", most from Morrison.

Spoiler

"The ram could smash a hole in an enemy vessel and so cripple her, but could not literally sink her. Ancient sources use terms meaning 'sink', but it is evident that ships so 'sunk' could still be towed away. The Greek word kataduein, which is almost invariably translated as 'sink', in fact means no more than 'dip' or 'lower'. So, when triremes were holed in a sea battle, although they had become absolutely useless as fighting vessels, the combatants went to great lengths and some risk to recover the wreck", from Fields.

Regarding the trireme, "with this new weapon ramming tactics were brought to a fine art, especially by the Athenians", from Fawcett.

"Though ramming remained a standard fighting tactic, it was now generally subordinate to action by the marines—the firing of missiles and heaving of grapnels", from Casson.

"the Macedonians fought back valiantly from the deck in close combat", "when Alexander sent his fleet in battle order against Tyre he put on deck his élite footsoldiers in case the expected engagement turned out to be fought not by the breakthrough" "but by hand-to-hand combat. The Macedonians and still more the Romans were inclined to trust hand-to-hand fighting in which they excelled", from Morrison.

"Roman ships were specially designed to use as their principal weapon an oversize complement of marines and were consequently markedly clumsy and slow whereas the Carthaginian ships, specially designed to use the ram as their principal weapon, were consequently markedly maneuverable and swift", from Casson.

"The newly invented catapult is reported to have been used effectively there from the land against warships", from Morrison.

"By the end of the 4th century BC more exotic weapons, such as catapults and fire-pots, came into use", from Fields.

"Galleys more and more ceased being man-propelled missiles to become carrying platforms for fighting men and—a new naval weapon—catapults", from Casson.

"The accuracy of shooting would have been greater in training than in range, so a target ship which is head-on to thrower or archer is more likely to be hit somewhere along its length than a target lying at an angle to the line of flight. Ships approaching in line abreast would be good targets. On the other hand, missiles and arrows would be coming mainly from one direction only which would make use of shields or other protective devices more effective, except against the heavier ones such as those thrown by catapults. An arrow with a pyramidal head of a type developed about 500 BC and thrown by the smallest sinew-powered catapult c [sic] penetrate 50 mm of limewood", from Morrison.

Some, like the Romans, would use "grappling irons fired by catapult", from Casson.

"Since the ships were so low, to give the marines height enough to sweep an enemy's deck, collapsible towers, which could be swiftly set up or dismantled, were carried fore and aft", from Casson.

"Collapsible turrets (πύργoι ἐπτυγμένoι)" "were erected to provide additional vantage for missiles" (even catapults), and "placed in the bow, at bow and stern and sometimes amidships also", "it was the big ships, from fives to tens, on which 'high towers' could be built", from Morrison.

 

Ship types:

-Three: attributed to Corinthians. 170 rowers, 35 m long. Usually with a parexeiresia (outrigger) for the thranite oars (more rarely also on fives). "The normal complement of armed men on deck in the later fifth century is shown by Thucydides to have been ten hoplites and four archers. But troop-carriers would take up to forty hoplites". "There was also the troop transport proper (hoplitagogos)". "In the latter part of the fourth century" they "ceased to be front-line ships", but "they remained as a large part of a fleet, and were given the task of towing troop- and supply-ships, as well as serving for reconnaissance and communications". "Ptolemy's fives and fours were swamped by ramming suggests that such action probably by Demetrios's [sic] fast threes. Though fast they are said not to have been able to catch up with merchantmen sailing before the wind". "All threes are here characterised as fast sailing in contrast to the fours and fives".

-Four: attributed to Carthaginians. 176 oarsmen on "88 double-manned oars at two levels, 44 on each side of the ship", "broader than the three but shorter with a maximum of 22 as against 31 'rooms'". Deck "2.2 m above the loaded waterline, 0.7 m or more below those of fives and 0.4 to 0.6 m below those of threes". "Fours were significantly lower than fives, decksoldiers from fours being unable to leap aboard a five". "Cheaper to build than the three-level three and five". Although heavy, "she was fast and manoeuvrable". "A little faster under oar in a sprint than a five and at endurance speeds probably as fast". "Permanent boxing-in with louvres" "succeeded the upper and lower temporary protective gear". Quadriremes in Rhodian navy: "Catapult operators; at least 2. Archers; at least 6. Marines; at least 19". "In the 4th century BC four new types of oared warships were developed, the four, the five, the six and the one-and-a-half-er". By 330 BC Athens had Fours, and by 325 BC Fives, a few each, but growing.

-Five: attributed to Syracusans (and Phoenicians, for whom the "uppermost level of oars is not rowed through a" parexeiresia "and that there are two instead of one course of open rooms"). Average of 240 to 300 oarsmen, complement of 120. "10% longer than the three". 8 m wide overall and 5.7 m at the water line. "15% slower in a sprint than a three". "The ship would be fighting in denser melées for boarding, besides being slower than threes and decidedly slower to turn. She would therefore be more prone to be rammed by them, so the need to strengthen the hull would have become apparent, calling for more additions to weight and breadth to maintain stability". "A heavy screen, which might have been of wooden louvres". "The appearance of a second open course suggests the need for more ventilation and the presence of more oarsmen at the three levels of oars than in the threes". "Hair sidescreens could well have given sufficient protection against missiles hand-thrown or shot by bow" "but they would have been less effective against the later, heavier, catapulted missiles". "The five is likely to have been an expensive ship to build and run".

-Six: attributed to Syracusans. 360 oarsmen and 140 complement. Around 40 cm higher than fives. Breadth above waterline of 5.7 m, overall 7.5 m and draft 1.5 m. A glorified five, very similar to them. Many, like Romans and Rhodians, didn't really go higher than this.

-Seven: attributed to Macedonians (same up to Ten). 400 oarsmen. 2.95 m above water. Could have been developed to carry more troops than the Six. Able to grapple and overwhelm any lesser type by boarding. No need for speed, 4 or 5 knots continuously for some hours. Popular and useful type. Larger ships were built in small numbers, probably an attempt at ramming invulnerability, difficult to capture, carrying catapults and troops.

-Eight and Nine: "While eights and nines did in at least some, probably earlier, cases have three levels of oars, two level systems were probably adopted later". "Three levels of oars would have been best if speed was important", while two levels "would have met the requirements for heavy ships, to carry a heavy load of armament and troops and be relatively well protected to enable them to act like the floating fortresses". "The price would have been paid in cost and speed". "The steadiness of beamy ships" "made them better platforms for missile-throwers". "The development of catapults for use at sea is likely to have encouraged a change to two-level oarsystems", since "more men at each oar and on fewer levels would be somewhat less prone to disruption when oarsmen were killed or wounded by a missile". "Eights and above may be seen to have been attempts to create fortress-like ships, immune to ramming, difficult to capture by boarding, and carrying a powerful armament of catapults".

-Ten: Oarcrew 600, complement 200. Breadth above waterline of 9 m, overall 10 m. Length not likely much more than that of sixes and sevens.

-Eleven to Sixteen, Twenty, Thirty: built, but "no active service" "is recorded". Ptolemy II at some point had "two thirties, one twenty, four thirteens, two twelves, 14 elevens, 30 nines, 36 sevens, five sixes and 17 fives, while the ships from four to τριηρημιoλία were double these", from Casson.

-Forty: showpiece, around 135 m long, 7250 personnel. Again 3 levels. Possibly a catamaran.

-Hēmiolia and Trihēmiolia: light and fast, from Hellenistic times. The hēmiolia was a one-and-a-half oar rows on its two levels, and the trihēmiolia a two-and-a-half oar rows on its three levels).

-Merchantmen: "unladen transports stood significantly higher in the water than fives. The difference of height was apparently sufficient for 'the Carthaginians from their warships (rostratae) to throw most of their missiles ineffectively against a higher position, seeing that they had to do it leaning back, while a missile scoring a hit from the transports above did more damage, deriving its force from its mere weight'". "As big ships, they were dependent on sail alone and slow". "From the fifth century B.C. on, carriers of from 1000 to 150 tons burden were in common use, while those of from 350 to 500 tons, though obviously considered big, were by no means rare. When it came to passengers, vessels could take as many as 600 on long voyages. In the Hellenistic Age", "the biggest merchant ship known from the ancient world" "three-masted, three-decked grain carrier of some 1700 to 1900 tons burden". "The use of lead sheathing over pitch-impregnated fabric was a well-established practice royal three-masted merchantmen".

Spoiler

 

Game proposals:

-Ramming damage could need a certain speed: I thought about giving ramming a minimum range, but this wouldn't allow attack orders at the last moment while at speed. Ships would need to have slow acceleration. If things get too crammed, ramming shouldn't be possible, boarding becoming the main tactic. This is why Athens lost at Syracuse in 413 BC.

-Ramming the enemy's bows (front) could be inefficient: implementing this would make tactics like diekplous, periplous, kyklos and others automatically emerge. Realistically, it should cause self-damage (while a tech like Epotides, a frontal reinforcement, could reduce this), but that might complicate things unnecessarily.

-Capturing ships and buildings could be similar: with capture resistance decreasing with HP. Deck soldiers should be quite inefficient at damaging ships, this being achieved mostly by ramming or catapults. In conclusion, the total destruction or immediate capture of a ship should be way more inefficient than a combined approach. Ideally, I think garrisons should be vulnerable in certain ways, and this would also make capturing easier.

-Damaged ships could present handicaps: there was some talk of doing this for land units. For ships, it seems even more necessary if they are going to be captured in the middle of a battle (ideally after being damaged). Personally, I still think base garrisons and virtual combat would solve most issues, in this case, oarsmen number (and a default complement if needed) would also determine handicaps, and their redistribution when a ship is captured subject to gameplay balancing (I've read cases where one third of the oarsmen used would come from the ones just captured).

-Triērēs (Three) and Tetrērēs (Four) could be ramming ships: they wouldn't garrison many troops, but wouldn't need that to be useful, since their attack comes from their speed, which comes from their oarsmen, who are assumed to be always present in all ships. They would automatically reverse after ramming, unless boarding is ordered. Fours would be cheaper but slower, and lower because of its two levels, thus much worse at boarding. Athens should have the Tachunautousai Triērēs already proposed (with no garrison slots, which could be a "champion" characteristic of ships, as previosly mentioned). Between Threes and Tens an ascending number of garrison slots has to be decided.

-Pentērēs (Five) and Hexērēs (Six) could be boarding ships: all ships should be able to board, but these would be optimised for that task because of their size and speed balance. They would board after ramming, unless reversing is ordered, but that should take time since they get stuck because of their high main rams. Fives would have one tower for light missile cover at the front (its rate could depend on garrisons), while Sixes would have an additional tower at the center. Garrisons are needed for boarding, while for larger ships they’d serve a more defensive role. These were the most pragmatic ships, the Romans wouldn't usually go higher than Sevens, which were used as flag ships.

-Heptērēs (Seven) and Oktērēs (Eight) could be oxybeles ships: as for larger ships, not able to ram (for gameplay considerations mostly). Sevens would have three towers along the ship, the middle one with an oxybeles (maybe the closest to the "Arrow Ship", if not a bit more powerful, but catapults mounted on ships would be less accurate). Eights would double the front towers, and it would have two levels like the Four (but around as tall as the ones with three levels), making them slower but sturdier. In general I was placing more catapults from Fives up, but decided to keep it conservative and differentiated among these "classes", for now.

-Ennērēs (Nine) and Dekērēs (Ten) could be lithobolos ships: both with two levels. Hard to capture if garrisoned, but really slow and expensive. Nines would have five towers, doubling the central one of the Eight, where it would have two lithoboloi. Tens would have six towers, doubling the back one of the Nine, and having two lithoboloi on the front towers, for a total of four of them (a large increase in siege power for a decrease in missile cover from three to two towers). Ships higher than Tens reportedly never saw combat. I like that this scheme realistically places two warships on each "class", with somewhat fuzzy transitions, but the extremes being completely different, following the 0 A.D. philosophy of the Citizen Soldier for example (placed between the radically different Workers and Champions).

-Possible distribution: currently Athenians have 2 "Athenian Threes" (Arrow and Ramming), Macedonians a Three (Arrow) and a "Macedonian Three" (Ramming), Ptolemies a Four (Arrow), an Five (Ramming) and an Eight (Siege), Romans and Seleucids a Three (Arrow), a Four (Ramming) and a Five (Siege), and Spartans a Two (Arrow) and a Three (Ramming). As a preliminary idea (as all this is before any proper balance considerations) to give an example, one could give Athenians a Tachunautousa Three (fast Ramming), a Four (Ramming) and a Five (Boarding), Macedonians a Five (Boarding), a Seven (Oxybeles) and an Eight (Oxybeles), Ptolemies a Six (Boarding), a Seven (Oxybeles) and a Ten (Lithobolos), Romans a Five (Boarding), a Six (Boarding) and a Seven (Oxybeles), Seleucids a Six (Boarding), a Seven (Oxybeles) and a Nine (Lithobolos), and Spartans a Three (Ramming, and good luck at then boarding with good infantry). Other civs that would basically also have these types of ships are Persians (same ships as Sparta) and Carthaginians (same ships as Athens), while those on the Atlantic would have strong ships that can't ram nor use catapults, but be used mostly for boarding and missiles (and fire stuff).

-Hoplitagogos (Hoplite Carrier) tech could reduce speed and increase garrisons of Threes: but only for Spartans and maybe Persians (and coming Thebans), to improve their boarding chances. In sources the translation given is actually "troop transport", but this take would align better with the next point.

-Oinagogos (Wine Carrier) and Sitagogos (Grain Carrier) techs could increase Merchantment profitability: just some terms I came across when searching for hoplitagogos.

-Molybdiai Keramides (Leaden Sheets) tech could increase Merchantment profitability, and reduce their cost, but also speed: as I proposed in Thoughts on the Spartans for Lead Sheathing, but these new terms (which mean the same) would be the nominative plural of "μολυβδίναις δὲ κεραμίσιν", "with leaden tiles", from Athenaeus.

-Regarding Scouts: right now Romans have a Liburna, which is fine since it's a particular type of lembos, Ptolemies and Seleucids a Dierēs, which should be diērēs but already explained didn't specifically exist, Macedonians a Hemiolos, the usual term being the feminine hēmiolia, Athenians and Spartans have a Pentēkóntoros, apparently the outdated one-level variant. Instead, one could give Ptolemies a Trihēmiolia, Seleucids a Hēmiolia, Athenians a Pentēkontoros (two levels), Macedonians a Triakontoros (two levels), and Spartans keep the current Pentēkontoros (one level), while coming Thebans could have a Triakontoros (one level), to represent all of them, their average naval power, and some reflecting what sources mention. Threes were faster than these, but for gameplay reasons Scouts, like Merchantmen, could be always under sail, to make them faster and allow a larger FOV since their mast is up, while Threes to Sixes could rely on oars only. Seven to Tens could rely on both, again with larger FOV since they are mainly ranged, and by then for sure not being faster than the ships just chosen for scouting.

 

Additional details:

-Propulsion: sails were mainly used, partially lowered in strong winds or to escape daytime detection. All oars were manned only during emergencies (reliable speed) or battle (manoeuvres, with sails lowered and the mast "dropped sternwards", with all that left at port if possible, although maybe this was not possible for merchant ships). Small auxiliary sails appeared just before the start of the game. Athens experimented shortly with "light" sails before the Hellenistic period "to do away with the trouble and expense of equipping ships with two sets of gear and to experiment with a single set carrying a sail of finer cloth". In navies, "slaves were used as rowers only at times of absolute emergency", usually they were "citizens, mostly the poor". This was not the case for merchant ships.

Spoiler

"Winds in Greek waters are so variable" "that on a long day's voyage triremes consistently under oar and without the extra weight of main yard and mainsail will by and large go faster than those attempting to use their mainsails when the wind is favourable", from Gardiner.

-Defenses: yards "reached so far beyond the hull that they could be fitted for dropping stones or other heavy weights on enemy galleys that tried to come alongside", called "stone-bearers" (lithophoroi) or "dolphin-bearers" (delphinophoroi). "The development of side-screens in the 5th century is well attested", "sidescreens (pararrhymata, parablemata) appear frequently in pairs (port and starboard)", "it is likely that the" white "canvas was protection against the sun and weather while hair and leather material was protection against missiles", and "fill the open space between the edge of the deck and the top of the" parexeiresia (outrigger) "in the three", while the katablema and hypoblema "gave protection under the" parexeiresia.

Spoiler

The hypoblema "is always absent in lists of the hanging gear of tetreres", thus "the four had two levels of oars and would thus have had no outrigger beneath which to rig a screen", which was usually used as "protection against the impact of waves", from Morrison.

"For triremes and quadriremes includes hypoblema, katablema, pararrhymata leuka ("white pararrhymata"), pararrhymata trichina ("hairy pararrhymata")”, “had been standard issue since ca. 370 B.C.". "The hypoblemata and katablemata should be awnings. Down to 325 B.C. triremes had been equipped with one of each; in 330 and 323 they were issued only a katablema. Quadriremes, introduced into the navy just before 330 B.C., carried only katablemala from the very beginning", from Casson.

 

Models and sounds:

-"As the ships came close together and the impact of the ram was imminent, those on the deck sat down", by Morrison.

-By 500 BC, rams would have already developed from "one that ended in a point" to "heavy, two-pronged ram made of bronze", while the "heavy three-finned bronze ram" is "thought to have been introduced around 400 BC or even earlier", from Fawcett.

-For some, "the prow shows a" proembolion "extending as far forward as the main ram, which is at the waterline. The aim of this remarkable development seems to be to combine the advantages of ships with high main rams (anasteiroi) and those with rams at waterline level", from Morrison.

-"Craft used for scouting were painted to resemble the sea", "and so were pirate craft" (blue-gray), from Casson.

-Sails were usually "left white, though it could be dyed various colors for various reasons: purple to distinguish a royal vessel or a flagship, black for mourning, sea green or blue for camouflage, other colors for decorative effect", from Morrison.

-"In addition to the pennants at the stern, merchantmen often flew one at the masthead and occasionally at each yardarm". "On warships, the name-device was placed on both sides of the bow, either carved or painted or in the form of a bronze plaque. Merchantmen carried it on both sides of the stempost", from Casson.

-"The poop, too, was where were placed ornamental representations of deities or other creatures that served as common markings for the galleys belonging to a given state. This practice was carried down to the fifth century B.C. at least; thereafter, Greek galleys either substituted or, in addition, carried the stylis", which "was a pole, generally fitted with a short crosspiece, which was set up alongside the aphlaston and which bore either a device symbolizing the guardian deity of the ship or his name written out. The stylis found scant favor among the Romans", from Casson.

-Anchors were "kept at the ready both fore and aft", and tied with rope, although "anchor chain was not unknown but its use was strictly exceptional". Most were made "two-thirds of wood and one-third of a heavy substance, either lead or stone", "the arms were of wood with metal tips—but no flukes", which "do not appear until late in the Roman Imperial period and only rarely then". Regarding shapes, "in Roman Republican times, the arms were straight and formed more or less an isosceles triangle with the shank. In Imperial times, they were curved to form a crescent", and in "in late Imperial times they became straight again, sticking out at right angles to the shank for most of their length, with but a slight upward curve at the ends". "The warship's anchor was a variation on the merchant ship's. To cut down on bulk, arms and shank were of iron; the total weight of this part of a trireme's anchor could be less than 50 pounds", from Casson.

-"Sometimes the oarsmen would join in a rhythmic cry, repeating it over and over to mark time. The cries "O opop, O opop" and "ryppapai" each one mimicking the rhythm of the oar stroke, are both attested for Athenian crews", from Fields.

-"Cleopatra's use of the timbrel instead of the Roman trumpet to transmit orders at sea", from Morrison.

 

@Asher, @Atrik, since you were tinkering with ships lately, here the post I told you was coming, hopefully you can get something out from this.