Last Tank Wins?

[CombinedArms]

I've only been playing CM for a few months, but my experience is that in most scenarios, the player or side with the LAST TANK (or other AFV) WINS. In armor- heavy scenarios, sometimes it's having the last 5 or 6 tanks.

This is not to say that infantry isn't also crucial, but having that last AFV or so often seems to turn the tide of battle.

Have others had this experience--again, not all the time, but 90+% of the time?

If so, what are the implications for CM tactics--i.e., ways of making sure you're the one with the LAST TANK?

[Windopaene]

Well, to an extent I think you're right, and I too held this opinion at one time, however, I'm starting to think a bit differently. If you have the only tank left on turn 12 of 30, AND you have a lot of HE ammo left, then things are likely to get ugly for your opponent. If you have the last tank left on turn 23 of 30, and/or it's out of HE and/or MG ammo, then it's not going to help much.

I'm currently playing a few games where I expect both sides will have armor left at the end, so that's not always going to be a hard and fast rule.

As for making the last tank standing one of yours, try keeping them out of the sights of the enemy!

[Juju]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I've only been playing CM for a few months, but my experience is that in most scenarios, the player or side with the LAST TANK (or other AFV) WINS.

Nah, not true at all. Lose all your crunchies, you lose the game; lose all your AFV's; adapt and improve.

------------------

If your enemy comes to speak bearing a sword, open your door to him and speak, but keep your own sword at hand.

If he comes to you empty-handed, greet him the same way.

But if he comes to you bearing gifts, stand on your walls and cast stones down on him.

[Guest wwb_99]

I often lose all of my armor, but oftentimes it is not the direct cause of the loss. If the VLs are in defensable terrain, with ways to block LOS and you still have arty and enough crunchies, you can at least draw if not win outright.

Now on a clear map, you are up **** creek.

WWB

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

Check out the Dogs of War CM Players Community

[Peterk]

It's less of an issue in operations or when there's not too many turns left in the scenario, but yes, losing your last tank early in a small engagement can really cost dearly. Lots of times, just the threat of having an AFV on the board even though it's hidden away and not doing much has a huge effect in tying up the opponents tanks.

There's ways of dealing with the deficiency though. If you've got smoke, just keep the opponents AFVs blind and they won't be able to have much of an effect.

p.

[BloodyBucket]

I don't know about the last tank theory, but certainly the first side that decides it is defeated always loses.

------------------

"Roll on"

[Gen-x87]

Well in a PBEM I am in right now. I have nor armor left. So lets see if I can somehow get a win out of it

I will admit it is damn hard to win when your enemy has armor and you do not.

Gen

[grunto2]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I've only been playing CM for a few months, but my experience is that in most scenarios, the player or side with the LAST TANK (or other AFV) WINS.

yeah it really sux when the other guy has a tank and you don't; i mean if his tank has any decent HE capability.

lots of caveats here... like how big is the battle (how much remaining infantry is there?... are there any AT assets which might have a chance of 'getting' the other guy's last armor?... is his last tank engaged in close combat in a city where it might quickly be destroyed?)

generally though - all other things being equal - it's no fun when the other guy has armor and you don't.

andy

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

Well, if your opponent is not stupid, has the only tank left in the game, enough turns and still enough infantry to build a bodyguard for the tank while having enough other forces to go for the flags, then he is in an excellent position.

However, many things can go in the way here and as long as you don't know that all of the above and no of the countermeasures below apply, don't feel defeated.

But before I list some things that might help when it comes to this situation, I like to refer to the "thinking about a change in allied tactics topic", which had some thoughts (by me and others) that the player with the weaker tank position to start from should avoid an early tank battle and instead damage the opponent's infantry and heavy weapons as long as possible. Please read the topic.

OK, so that tactic failed and you are the one without the only tank left:

Some tanks are very slow. Late in the game many people don't have artillery ammunition anymore. It might pay off to mass your infantry and assault the flank of your opponent's infantry that is opposite of the tank. Certainly better than to sit there and wait for the tank to wipe you out.

Are you sure the tank has MG ammunition and HE shells left? How much? Can you know? Some people go as far as to count all shots an enemy tank fired on a piece of paper. If there is only one tank left for a player in a bigger battle, ammunition will be a major problem.

Is the main gun firing at all? People frequently use tanks with damaged guns to bluff. Also the MG(s) may be damaged.

Don't forget that not all tanks are very good against infantry. Again, see the article referred to above for some Panther vs. Sherman considerations.

If the tank is a tank hunter, then -well- it is not an anti-infantry tank. HE blast, MG ammunition, MG positions will be worse.

The tank may be shocked or you may be able to shock it when it opens with any kind of infantry. And the opponents may open it, because...

... some vehicles can operate the most effective MG only when unbuttoned. On Shermans etc. you may also run out of normal MG ammunition and have ammo for the .50 cal left. In any case, the fewer turns are left, the more pressure is there to get rid of MG ammunition and depending on the kind of tank to open it.

Even if your opponent competently guards his tank against your AT infantry, you may still be able to deceive. Remember that your goal is not neccessarily to knock it out. You must delay it to reduce the number of HE and MG shots it can fire at your infantry and you must keep it in its cover so that the battlefield shaping effect is reduced, that your infantry may still move.

Ways to do this could be running around with any infantry teams (even splitted squads) so that so team? or infantry? markers appears in places where the opponents must not have an AT team, although you don't have such a team there.

Or fire smoke into a possible approach path for AT teams, even without AT teams. Or operate an empty AT team like it could still bite. Or both. The opponents will most probably back up, because he/she must not risk this tank, which means almost certain victory. That means loosing about two turns. If you can use the time to move your infantry, even more until he reaches a good position again.

I think the one-tank situation is a bit like the eleven-meter in soccer. The goalkeeper is in the better situation, because the player has all the load of almost certain success on its. Making a mistake is common.

It also has a demoralizing effect on the opponent if you manage to rip victory from him in this situation, it may help your next game. Or if look at single games, the possible satisfaction of bringing this to an acceptable end is big.

[StellarRat]

Well, I've played plenty of games where I had no tanks to start with and won. A well thought out infantry defense is very tough to beat. Even if they only have bazookas/shrecks they can make life miserable for armor. I've had infantry defenses with AT guns absolutely destroy a combined arms attack in just a couple turns.

[This message has been edited by StellarRat (edited 03-29-2001).]

[chrisl]

Originally posted by StellarRat:

Well, I've played plenty of games where I had no tanks to start with and won.

I haven't played many with no tanks at all, but I recently played an op where I had no tanks (defending) and the attacker had a bunch of them. I did have a reasonable supply of AT guns (6 pdr and 17pdr) It went only 3 of the 7 battles because the attacker was pretty much slaughtered in each of the three. In the first one he lost nearly all the infantry and a couple bits of armor. In the second one it was a rout-- he sent a bunch of tanks through an AT ambush and lost 7 misc AFVs in a single turn, plus some others in other turns. He's a pretty decent player but was having a bit of a bad op. So you can do quite well with no tanks at all.

------------------

"I HATE THIS GAME, YOU AND THIS SCENARIO" -jd

[Warmaker]

I think this can be true to an extent. However, any good/veteran player will think of a way to overcome this obstacle. I will admit though that the Germans are quite a bit more capable of taking on armor without tanks with the abundance of Panzerfausts sprinkled with Panzerschrecks. This is quite evident in short ranges esp.

If you have the last AFV then I also see what type it is as having a factor in the outcome (of course how you use it is important also). Generally, TD's suck in taking on infantry so their impact on these targets aren't as high. Maybe for suppressive fire w/ MGs and a few shots form the main gun but their effectiveness is still lower than that of a regular tank or assault gun since they're geared towards an AT role with lots of AP/t rounds.

------------------

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by StellarRat:

Well, I've played plenty of games where I had no tanks to start with and won. A well thought out infantry defense is very tough to beat.

Exactly my point.

If your battle plan relies so much on one factor, there's something wrong with it.

That reminds me on the "would you surrender if all your tanks are lost?" -debate.

HELL NO!!

As long as my infantry and supporting weapons are still in fair order I continue the fight.

In many battles my opponents had more tanks than me, at least before they met my AT defenses.

IMHO if you loose because of "that last enemy tank" you would have lost anyway...

I try to conduct a battle so that even if I loose my tanks I can still win or at least achive a draw.

If your battle plan relies too much on one factor (tanks) then you should change your plan.

------------------

Klotzen, nicht kleckern!