Need help defending as UK until USSR joins

I think, the problem is Canada.
When I play the Allies, the problem I usually get is, that I fail on Logistic.
I can allways ONLY focus on weapons OR personals and trannys on one turn.
But we know from history that Canada was a vital manufactorer of weapons and armour for the allies.
Maybe a HR will fix this problem by:

When the U.S. is at war Canada contributes some portions to the allies as for the us in the Atlantic one DD and a bmbr for the uk.
And for pacific US one DD.
Each round!
For the pacific, Australia must be allied controlled.
As for the atl. .Canada must be allied controll for the DD.
UK must be allied controlled for the bmbr.

What you think??

@Young:

@wittmann:

I do think you need a Minor YG.

We will playtest this Sunday with the minor in India of course, but if this game mechanic proves to powerful… a small tweak like removing the Calcutta factory altogether would be an option.

How about introducing the “Medium Factory”. The rules would read

“Cost 15. Upgrades a Minor Factory to a Medium factory. Medium Factories can build up to 6 units. Medium Factories can only be built on an originally controlled starting territory that has an IPC value of 3 or more.”

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

@ghr2:

Maybe give the UK +5 for at least 1 allied surface warship in the med, basically the opposite of the Italian NO.  Or, give some NO’s for the UK control over some middle-east countries.

Yeah, I always thought that if Germany and Italy could get $2 for Iraq, Persia and NW Persia, then the UK should be able to as well.

@Admiral:

@Rhey:

I always attack Japan in China on UK Pac 2. This reopens the burma route (as the Japanese have way too limited ground forces) and keeps china in play. China is really more important then most of the players think. I find them very strong, especially against those scattered Japanese forces. The only problem is their airforce but every japanese unit you can take out on the mainland, is a huge win.

Crazy thing about the Japanese air force and Chinese units is this, the latter just needs to keep those precious stacks out of their range. Pull back, retreat. Advance when the time is right. A smart Chinese players does this, and makes the Japanese player really invest their time in the Chinese hinterland, splitting their options.

Best strategy for the Chinese is to play exactly like the Russians:  Turtle up and keep one step away from the units trying to take them out.  Each round you’ll be able to add 2-3 Inf to your big starting stack.  Once Japan attacks the UK or Anzac, you’re free to start marching towards either A:  Burma Road to reclaim it or B: The valuable territories the Japanese start with in the north.

Both cases make Japan invest more deeply into taking China than it wants to, while buying time until India can help you retake the Burma Road.  Don’t play foolish with your big starting stack, protect it until the Japanese are too thin or they’ve invested too much in China (which is an IPC sink if Japan doesn’t get it early).

Thanks guys.

@Young:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=24408.315

Here is a conversation about this topic in the questions thread. Does “in Europe” refer to the continent, or the map board.

i think the continent, although initially i read it as board as well.

Any naval battle occuring in the seazone presents the opportunity for a scramble, even an unescorted transport landing.