Redesign 2: Siege Tank

Hey folks. Okay, here it is, my take on the Siege Tank. I was talking to a fellow forum member and I claimed that it was like trying to redo the Mona Lisa of Da Vinci when attempting something as tough as Blizzard's Siege Tank.

So here's what I tried to keep in mind when doing this one:

1. Grittier, a lot of people don't like cartoony tanks, so I tried to not saturate it. Unfortunately the image you see is a little TOO desaturated due to post limits, but you get the idea.

2. Lots of ppl seem to like the SC1 siege tank better, so I kind of tried to keep to that.....sort of.

3. People seem to hate the X form during siege mode of the new ones, so I sat there all through lunch and dinner trying to think of a cool transformation that would end up somehow not "X"ed, lol.

4. I think it came out a little dark, but I don't feel like re-rendering right now. If I get enough complaints then I might have another go at it later.

5. Overall, I feel like this is very different than what you've seen so far from Blizzard's tanks, at least for SC2, and my guess is you are probably going to love it or hate it, at least conceptually.

Okay, enough said, here's the image, I hope you find it at least pretty entertaining and thanks again for all the feedback and support on the last unit redesigns batch.

EDIT: Oh, yeah I forgot to mention that the speed is off due to compression as well. Only the transformation is regular speed but everything else is way out of whack, lol. Also, it's differed quite a bit, but I think that's maybe a trade off for how it looks in a game engine

[img width=275 height=275]http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2170.0;attach=908;image[/img]

[img width=275 height=275]http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2170.0;attach=909;image[/img]

 

did u make this same post then delete it then post it again?

also i like ur idea better in siege mode but thier one in tank mode.

 

All I have to say is... wow

Speechless for a bit... must think of constructive criticism... tooooo hard to do... don't know what else to think... gaaah!

Maybe it'll be nice to see it moving haha. Dude I can't think of one thing... I'll get back to ya lol ^_^

I really think we should contact Blizzard about your mad skills haha

 

Gotta give you a power up on this one owerup:. ( I rarely give them out.) Its nice and just the way I was hoping they would make it. Now if only it would come to pass.

 

[img width=670 height=502]http://www.blizzard.com/misc/e3/2004/ghost/images/artwork/SiegeTank1a.jpg[/img]
gotta say this looks (in reg tank mode) real similer to the sc ghost tank but nice job making it have a sweet transform sequence. owerup:

 

i like the sc2 one more

 

Thanks fellas.

@Tweakismyname, yea I swear I'm like, the biggest tard when it comes to posting. I ALWAYS forget something, like, forever cycling 'n what not. It's like my brain is just gone, lol. Sorry bout that.

 

Arch! you made transformers movie look like crap!! lol well not too much couse i like the movie, but your model is defenitly a masterpice. The transformation sequince has a lot of cherachter and a lot of though put in it, very detailed and darkness gave it origional SC feel to it, i wish the hole game would be so dark. This should be posted at Blizz forums so people can see it and maybe redesign it. i have to agree that the tank mode looks starnge, that you cant imagine it move (cant see where the weels might be) or how people can fit in that. but over all i love it owerup: awesome job buddy!

 

Thanks Alukard

Yea, there's this tutorial on how to animate treads and I have yet to go through it. But you could have actually seen the treads themselves if the compression wasn't so bad. Argh... oh well, but I'm glad you like the transformation sequence. I admit that's probably the most important part to me on a personal accomplishment level, hehe.

 

People do see it. http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/index.php?topic=2071.0
Ah okay, I see what ya mean now Alukard and ya that is true. Sorry for the mix up.

 

i ment other people like us not just blizz people

 

ArchLimit, another damn good job. You haven't yet gotten the credit you deserve publicly on the forum for either of these threads, so I'm going to give it to you.

Thank you, very, very much, for bringing these units to life for us on the forums. You've given us valuable insight into what they could or SHOULD look like. BTW, this is what a Seige Tank SHOULD look like. Not craptoony.

@ Tweak. That looks NOTHING like his design other than the fact that... oh wait, yea, THEY'RE BOTH F********* SEIGE TANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(there's 2 or 3 curses in there)

Two words summarize it all = Good job.

 

Again, good model. Although I gotta say two things I don't particularly like about it. One is the way it goes into siege mode. Having the entire tank's body move down seems both over the top and impractical.

By over the top I mean that even having legs come out to secure it is a little over the top so having the entire body go down to secure it is way over the top. The mass and shape of the tank itself should compensate for and additional recoil not soaked up by the design of the gun. In many artillery guns the barrel will push back from the recoil so that the entire recoil is not felt by the rest of the artillery piece. The same applies to self propelled artillery (although no SC siege tank has done this as of yet).

By impractical I mean that with the entire body of the tank shifting downwards there must be a large gap there while in tank mode. Clearly there could not be any crew in these sections as they would be crushed in siege mode and it creates a less sturdy structure which is not a good thing especially in fighting vehicles. Assuming there are 3 crew members (pilot, commander, gunner) they would be pretty squished all sitting in the turret. However, since the regular guns move into this space, there is no space for the crew anywhere in the tank.

Also, I am not fond of the attack animation as the entire turret and not just the barrel of the gun is propelled backwards and the side of the guns in regular mode seems a bit small.

I know these are pretty technical oriented complaints but I feel that they are important aspects to consider when designing things.

 

@Joneagle, d00d, u'r too kind

@Paragon, you're absolutely right. That was my biggest concern for the "dropping" the chassis move. I just wanted to come up with something different and the only thing that's been presented so far in SC2 is the X thing and not very many ppl seem to like that. However, if I do go back to the SC1 model/transformation animation, if you ever really look and take notice, not much actually happens. I mean, I loved the unit and everything, but I think given the technology advancements of 3D since SC1 (I mean our world), I feel like there can be more moving parts and such. All the siege tank really did in SC1 was retract smaller cannons in front, extrude large cannon in back, turn around to make the back the front, and the two little clamp things. I feel like in SC2 if people really saw it crisp and clear instead of a 2D sprite where you can get away with a little bit of abstraction, they might find it a little bland.

To be honest, when it comes down to realism I'm not entirely sure that "a transforming tank" isn't already stretching the boundaries a little, although I could be completely wrong about that as I am nowhere near as loaded with military expertise as you are. But anyway, that's sort of just the way I see the siege tank and its conceptual potential/limitations. And last but not least I figured if there are three guys per tank, you could have one guy sitting in the turret, and two guys in the back between the treads? Haha, I dunno, just tossin' sh*t out.

But thanks for a considerate and lengthy post Paragon.

 

Before I saw this I was happy with the current siege tank.  Now I suggest you send this to Karune because if I don't see this or something cooler in the final game I am going to have to murder all the devs

Small suggestion though:
When the gun fires don't have the whole turret recoil have just the barrel tip recoil like a regular tank and one large barrel probably will look better than three barrels that are smaller that the tank mode barrels

 

@ Paragon , you are correct about your interpretation of a CURRENT artillery weapon. They have to deal with recoil on a large scale, the larger the shell and distance, the greater the recoil. But you will also notice that in most cases, large artillery either requires an immense amount of weight (usually a ship) or ballast in order to fire.

Most tanks have to be VERY careful when firing in motion as it could be rolled over on its side. Considering thing, using feet anchors is not out of the question in the least.

However, this doesn't make your statements about the nature of the seige tank true. What if the side panels that separate to allow access to the seige cannon in front are simply reinforced with a type of armor we're not familiar with? What if it doesn't benefit from being such a solid mass of bulkheads as tanks of today?

Then it would make perfect sense for the seige cannon to be "resting" in a groove fitted for it protected within the shell armor of the tank for use in long-range combat.

EDIT: Btw, there is only one crewmember in each Seige Tank.
Lastly, it adds a great mechanic to the Seige Tank's design and thereby changes it. I certainly hope you're not saying you're against changing the game.

This is ArchLimit's artistic rendering. Just because it doesn't look like yours (more craptoony and with less effort and care put into it) doesn't mean that it needs to have flaws imagined for it.

 

i know its only a game, but that redesign of your, there a whole cannon sits in the front, the rear is suppose to the engine bay and the primary cannon retracts back in, so where do the driver sit?

 

@HeavyArms

Why, the siege tank doesn't need an engine cuz it's power driven by the ethereal force of drunken southern pyromaniacs. And the back is where such individuals sit

I dunno, you got me, lol.

 

The cannon doesnt go all the way forward there is enough room for a driver and if the tank is automated enough one person could drive and fire.

 

Oh yea, I have a general question for people. When you want to attach something to a post, it says that you can have up to 4 attachments at a total of 5000kb for the post. I noticed it doesn't say anything about the limit of file size PER attachment, as long as it's not over 5000kb. However, when I tried to attach anything larger than 2000kb for each individual file, it says it takes too long and rejects the post. I'm not particularly savvy bout internetz stuff, so is this a limitation throughout all internet posts sorta thing or a particular limitation of this forum?

Like, I know imageshack won't let u upload anything higher than 1.5mbs, and I think there's a certain resolution size limitation as well.

If anybody knows the answer lemme know, thanks a lot.