In in the name of Immortal Phalanxes?!

[puglover]

Once I was playing Civ 2 and had reduced Russia to one measly city. to Cathreine! Moscow (the only Russian city) was a walled 6 city (walls are too powerful in the game). I attacked the TWO phalanxes in the city with SIX musketeers. THEY ALL LOST! What in the world happened?!?!?!

 

[Archer 007]

Its called bad luck.

 

[funxus]

A phalanx behind a wall has 4 defence, and even more when veteran, and musketeers have an attack of 3. So the musketeer is bound to lose, and the phalanx probably become veteran after a couple of attacks. You should use vet crusaders instead of musketeers.

 

[Remorseless]

Or haul up three-four cannon and reduce the place to rubble

 

[Old n Slow]

Hmmm, let's see. If the Phalanxes were vets (50% improvement), fortified behind city walls (tripled defense), set aside the thought that Moscow could have been on a river (another 50%) we have what, 3 Att vs. 9 def? Granted the muskets have the extra hit point, (and yes your muskets could have been vets too), but it might be interesting to replay this battle a few times to see how the odds play out.

 

[Archer 007]

When I reread the post, I realized the error in mine. I forgot to account for those factors.

 

[puglover]

Walls are way too strong in Civ 2.

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Just ravage the countryside instead, if the city can only defend itself, you're free to pillage anything you want and set Moscow back a few centuries.

 

[Ludovit]

OK. Phalanx was max 9. But Musketeers, thanx to HP2 were 6, 8 if vets and stability factor of combat was 1.5. So it could have been 1 to 1. How long was the bar of phalanxes, when your muskets died?

 

[cliff]

Some calculations.

The phalanx has a defense strength of 2, fortified x1.5, city walls x3, probably veteran x1.5, possibly river x1.5.

That's 20 if the city is on a river or 13.5 otherwise.

The musketeer has an attack strength of 3 and I suspect they were not veteran. They do however have 20 hit points compared to the phalanx's 10.

Calculations for river city:

Odds are 20:3 in favor of the phalanx. In 23 rounds of battle, the musketeer will lose 20 hit points and die while the phalanx will lose only 3. There were 2 phalanxes in Moscow so battles will go something like this: (hit points left are displayed, 0=dead)
P - M
7 - 0
7 - 0
4 - 0
4 - 0
1 - 0
1 - 0
0 - 13
0 - 13
This indicates that it normally takes 8 non vet musketeers to defeat 2 vet phalanxes behind walls in a river city.

Let's say the city was not on a river. Now the odds change to 13.5:3 which is equivalent to 20:4.5.
Battles:
P - M
5.5 - 0
5.5 - 0
1 - 0
1 - 0
0 - 17
0 -17

6 musketeers will surely beat 2 phalanxes in this non river city. If they are vet they will also take the city on the river.

 

[Ludovit]

Hell! Phalax was really 20!

Your calculation is better than mine.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

IIRC, you don't get the fortification bonus as well as the City Walls bonus.

 

[ElephantU]

Agreed: the wall bonus supercedes the fort bonus. Even if the Phalanx were not vets, they would have almost surely become so after a couple of attacks. So I'd go with the 9 or 13.5 on a river. The other possibility is the presence of a Barracks. Were all attacks on the same turn? Could you see the damage bars?

 

[Marlos]

I'm with funxus. You have no business attacking any walled city with musketeers unless you have already "softened" the bars of the units in the city with cannon, crusaders, etc., and are desperate to take this city. That is the only instance in which I have used defensive units to finish the job.

 

[gugalpm]

Walls aren't too strong in civ2, they are right.
In civ3, the metropolis/city bonuses are overpowered and are almost an exploit, giving attackers a hard time attacking cities.
The defender doesn't need to build anything, in civ3. In civ2 it's more plausible, as defenders have to actually build their defenses.