I don't have any advice that's going to significantly change things for you, I'm afraid. The best I know of that you can really do is to take Seoul and Annex it ASAP. After that, it's really just picking between your neighbors, taking whatever cities you can, and Annexing them when you can. I wish I had a better answer for you, but there isn't one that I know of. North Korea is TOUGH, TOUGH, TOUGH to play, and resources is a big reason for that. I can usually survive through and come out on top of the beginning battles, but the economy is brutal (and I'm a guy who focuses on economy/infrastructure).

Perigee is right; NK is even tougher than Israel, Syria, Austria, Russia, USA, etc. It has very few cities and is at an extreme disadvantage due to this, lacking sufficient space and economic power to built military strength. However, if you can get in a good coalition, that’s going to be your saving grace. Get specialized with your military and excel in that specialization. Use extreme force concentrations at decisive points to become invaluable to your allies. And don’t try to fight two wars at once; I.e. follow the principles of warfare listed on Wikipedia.

well i like being nambia n for that and its small amount of citys i army base .except capital ,then bunker all citys ,sapital do resource ind , then res ind, all citys get u a aibase to 2 ,3 perf.then get strike and navy fighters ,but having neibors ,be nice to them ,talk to them so u can have time to get at least 2 or 3 stike fighters,then hit all neibors major citys crippling them ..thats how i win with nambia,strike,tanks.sams,art try it ,iv never been n korea but ill try them next game

syria is "bad" because its middle east and thus sucks

depends on map... on WW3 mp agree.. but Syria on flashpoint was my baby and won like first 3 games with Syria.

idk but germany in flash point is a forced win. yeah usa is good too but germany can close it before usa get in real contact with it. why do you suggest syria in flash point good?

Buckeyechamp wrote:

depends on map... on WW3 mp agree.. but Syria on flashpoint was my baby and won like first 3 games with Syria.

flashpoint is a whole different story tho

ww3 middle east is just a bad place to start no matter the country; you'll set yourself up for being basically the centerpoint between european, asian and african coalitions

1. its a corner country (original iran was auto ) but even now assume I whop em. so no I have one zone of offense/defense to worry about.

2. Turkey only main threat .... but he has what 7 cities (1 in Europe) so say 6. and turkey is slow mtns. I have 5 close cities .. throw up logistics build fast NGS .

3. Turkey has basically two routes (1 too alleppo via mth pass) and another one further east towards that closest east city. been awhile since played. anyways only 2 ways turkey will attack. I can get all my troops there way faster than him.

4. only 1 port to protect and after I whoop Turkey im golden. as no threats.

move through turkey.. take out Greece .. by that time Eastern Europe in a 6 way melee battle.. wait and clan up pieces. (it alwys seems anyone that picks land locked countires with 5 neighbors .. is never smart enough to make allies.. so its always A fights B and C .. B fights A and D...etc)

5. Russia worried about north (Finland; Belarus; Baltic; Ukraine and huge mtns in between)

Have won easily every time played Syria .. got so boring stopped playing it.

Cuba probably next best country ( can easily take USA .. you have ll resources together he has 1 - 2 cities in 2 days march and has to orry about Canada)

then won like twice with Algeria (take tunsia and morroo and basically a giant island). can go in any direction

all same no big real early threats and fight out with back against the wall of map.

In general like smaller maps as get bored after 14 days on map but flashpoint way to many quitters. so haven't played in a bit

yes algeria is good in flash point but definitely usa better than cuba idk why u think u can easily take usa there is no insurance u will have stronger navy. won a couple of times with usa I start build navy around cuba defeat theirs if there and bomb their naval bases and usually he will rage quite.

cuba can whoop usa 9/10 on flashpoint.

dont even need navy.. ok say day 1 .. i can charge Miami with all my stack .. wouldn't but just saying. Miami has no help within 1 day and out of air range. so eve n my 1 airs supp will weaken your port.. ill take maimi .. before you get haldf your troops ebvven close. then set airbase and its ball game. Plus i call Canada and say hey lets split USA ... so if USA over commits to south then canada comes in from for north.

USA best case scenario he allies with canada and he is even further away that him from helping. USA actually one of worst starting countries outside central europe on flashpoint

I defeated USA twice. Once as Algeria and once as Cuba. I had Canada's help both times , once as coalition ally and once as just mutual aid. That was flashpoint but I bet it would be harder on a big game. I usually lose on the big maps but someone has to lose. No problems.

Buckeyechamp wrote:

dont even need navy.. ok say day 1 .. i can charge Miami with all my stack .. wouldn't but just saying. Miami has no help within 1 day and out of air range. so eve n my 1 airs supp will weaken your port.. ill take maimi .. before you get haldf your troops ebvven close. then set airbase and its ball game. Plus i call Canada and say hey lets split USA ... so if USA over commits to south then canada comes in from for north.

USA best case scenario he allies with canada and he is even further away that him from helping. USA actually one of worst starting countries outside central europe on flashpoint

USA has a significant ressource advantage tho; they have how many cities? 7-8? they can afford to loose one or two and probably still have a higher ressource output.
In the end whoever wins navy wins the 1v1

cuba has only the advantage that its fairly isolated so you dont have to worry about a neighbor

already not talking long game .. after Miami .. im taking Atlanta.. etc... ok Miami navy port gone.. what hes going to sail from DC and try to attack me .. thanks further helps me.

now hes down to 6 homelnd i have 6 home and two occupied.. amd still better positioned from distance to front.

ok any you guys .. challenge on flshpoint.. no gold i already told you how would attack. you wont stop me (cuba )from taking half your country.... your only hope is to bunker north of wash DC and if you get Canada to join you but aftr i whooped Miami and atl .. Canada is joining wining team.

its just physics and math based on trooped dispersement. im not sitting back for ny days waiting for USA to get exponentially bigger.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Plus, this thread has gotten WAY off track. The original poster asked about resources for North Korea, and you guys are debating military conquest strategies between USA and Cuba in Flashpoint.

Buckeyechamp wrote:

ok any you guys .. challenge on flshpoint.. no gold i already told you how would attack. you wont stop me (cuba )from taking half your country.... your only hope is to bunker north of wash DC and if you get Canada to join you but aftr i whooped Miami and atl .. Canada is joining wining team.

its just physics and math based on trooped dispersement. im not sitting back for ny days waiting for USA to get exponentially bigger.

This is actually the strategic variant of a common naval tactic in the ages of sail and battleships called crossing the T. The idea is that the cross of the T can concentrate the entire firepower of their line onto each ship in the enemy line before the entire enemy fleet can bring their guns to bear for a broadside. In this application, the tactic is applied with defeat in detail by concentrating six cities against one. That’s 83% in one’s favor. Those odds are pretty hard to beat.

Also, yeah, this seems to happen a lot these days. The forum strategists get set off by one thing causing the inevitable devolution of the thread into a clash of military ideologies resolved only by continuous debate, clear scientific evidence, historical precedent, and eventual practical evaluation. Thus is the fate of every active forum thread. To be fair, Ninja did ask why Syria is hard. Aaaaand.... this happened. We definitely require expressions capable of fully evincing the magnitude of hilarity nascently inherent in the situation.