You lost a lot of armies trying to break Africa: one turn, you lost 30 armies while the defender only lost 20. To be fair, he baited you into attacking that turn by deploying adjacent and moving in the turn afterwards, but you probably should have given up on Antarctica the turn immediately following. He has a huge armies advantage, and though you manage to defend for a few turns, his attacks will kill far more of your armies than your defenders would. Furthermore, you shouldn't have blockaded where the enemy was going to attack. Blockades happen at the end of the turn, not the beginning, and positionally, it makes no difference whether you blockade at that position rather than at, say, South Pole.
Your expansion could be improved -- you put a lot of effort into Canada, only to never take the whole bonus. This is something to keep in mind moving forward but is probably a more long-term fix as you get the hang of when to expand. If you redirected some of the troops you spent in Antarctica to expansion, you could have taken West US and Canada, leading to an easy win.
However, one easier thing you should keep track of in no-luck games like 1v1 ladder games is good numbers to attack with. It is pointless to attack with 17 armies on that last turn; 17 armies kills the same number as 16, since 16 * .6 and 17 * .6 both round to 10. You did get unlucky by guessing incorrectly which territory he would defend more heavily, but if you split your attacks into 3 and 16 instead of 2 and 17, even with guessing incorrectly you would still break a bonus, albeit running an army deficit in the process.
- US is safe but takes ages to complete, i dont think its good. - Indonesia is surrounded by wastelands of 10 so no expansion from there, not good either (its safe and you could use leftovers for delay but overall I dont think its worth it). - Pick in AA is not good as you can see there s a straightforward counter for it. If you want AA, you pick south Africa.
Now you re lucky red played bad as he had much better picks (apart from pick 3 he should have taken scotland before north africa for combo west russia and secure south africa in 2 latest but anyway), he should have broken AA before it was completed.
Leave critiquing to others Mike, please. I know you mean well, but seriously, South Africa is not superior to Antarctica, like, ever. South Africa is a terrible pick, you should not anticipate the opponent picking it.
Semic, count it out. He moves into South Pole with 5 giving him 3 attacking leftovers. He could've done the same at East US. 6 territories -1 starting -1 after 5v2 now 4. He has 3 attacking leftovers + 9 income after Indonesia. That's 12 total. He takes 9 income in 3 turns vs 7 and then has a massive stack heading to Africa when he takes AA. Yes, not taking East US as his 2nd bonus is an obvious mistake.
I'd consider it a mistake to take E US last for sure, but I'd still consider Indo first rather than E US first a mistake, but ofc by the time he took Indo first he couldn't go backand fix that error.
End of turn 3 that game he should have had Indo, East US, and Novo. Novo vs. Siple could be argued, both have advantages - but I feel Novo's are more important. Novo lets you hit Africa turn 4, which is better in terms of maximum expansion opportunities, but it also means you hit Novo 3v2, and risk them hitting it after you but in the same turn causing you to lose your armies. No good opponent should be there though so I find that to be less of an issue than it would be in other situations.