A simple solution to a British problem

My computer is over 5 years old, has a Pentium III 1.0 GHz processor, 512mb of Ram, and an Intel 82815 Graphics card. I am running Windows Server 2003.  I have no problems running games like Hearts of Iron.  I think if you switch to XP you should be fine.

Thanks for all of the help everyone :D. I appreciate it and God bless :D :D :D .

I just played a game before I wrote this against the computer where the usa spent 90% of their money attacking germany. the dice went against me and i lost nearly everything. the germans lost finland and the ukrain pretty fast too. the germans looked like they were done except i had placed a factory and was pumping out 3 tanks (on my mainland factory) and 1-2 planes per turn.

in the first round i had managed to get india, one of the chinese provinces and the 2 eastern russian provinces. that’s probably why i lost so many troops. I spread them to thin. turn #2 i lost india and SE asia to britain and i captured them back right away and sunk their transport. i had about 2 infantry and 3 planes spread across my whole frontier, but russia had wasted some troops attacking me.

germany held on for a few turns and it was looking dim for them but my tanks started rolling in and my planes rushing in for some kamikazi action and sunk 8 american transports while i lost 4 planes. germany took moscow and i think you can imagine how it went from there.

i hate when i attack a territory with 3 inf and 2 planes and they have 2 inf and i miss completely for 2 turns and they get dead on hits both turns :P that’ll make you rethink your strategy in that area right quick. luckily the closest enemy factory is moscow which is concentrating on germany.

if you are japan and can capture all of asia and place a few factories there or even only one russia is pretty much done and all the germans have to do is hold off britain and the usa. after that the game is done. it seems every time. that’s why i stopped playing with japan with my friends. i always ended up owning asia and half the time africa too.

I’ve heard of people take the all historical approach (down to the letter) where it ruins it but the difference comes in how it will affect the game big picture wise. For example the paratroopers rule actually is not historic and in my view not important. the german JU-52 transport was not a big transporter (15 or so men) and the total production of ju-52’s was 2804!that means they couldonly carry 34,600 men (give or take 100) and that is usually the reason they add that rule! and the raids they made numbered only about 500 men in the planes! out of 100,000 supposed number of troops we call a half inch tall piece of plastic!!! now the allies made much larger capacity planes and probably sent more men in but to say that those men number one hundred thousand?? that is just one example of “overdoing it”. but the russian-japanese stalemate rule destroys a whole front and totally changes most strats….

I also like Zero’s approach. The Americans usually end up reinforcing the British in the south, while the Brits and Yanks drop infantry into Karelia (if indeed, the allies are strong there). This gives the Russians a chance to move some stuff east.

Just IMO,

Bad Play = US goes into the Pacific
Bad Play = Germany overextends itself (Early Karelia attack)
Bad Play = Britain overextrends itself (ICs in both SA and India)
Bad Play = Russia not prepared for the Japaneese
Bad Play = Japan Not performing Pearl Harbor Turn 1

Again, just my opinion for each country.

The difference though is that Germany committing additional ground units to CAU means those units die R2.  Japan committing additional ground units to secure SFE does nothing for Russia other than pull them off China - Russia can’t really counterattack them because SFE is a Japan deadzone with their fighters, transports, and BBs.

It is somewhat micromanagement, we’re only talking about 2 IPCs and 1 inf, but I still think you’re better off just giving Jap SFE.

luck, doing that is asking to die.