taking out the Brit destroyers?

@oysteilo yea buying ships with the ussr is not a good idea

which brings up the fun option of sending in fighters to attack with an unlikely landing spot. For example, lets say Japan has 8 transports in the Sea of Japan, but a massive fleet stationed a zone away making it hard for your Allied fleet to create a valid landing spot. You can attack the massive IJN fleet with a single sub which “in theory” could win the battle, and send a fighter to attack the transports with the potential option to land back in the zone that the sub opened up.

The transports are sunk, the allied sub is lost, and sadly there is no valid landing zone so the fighter crashes after the not-completely kamikaze mission. TripleA handles this correctly.

@Moller A submarine is a sea unit with an attack value and a defense value. What makes it special are its “Special Abilities”/unit characteristics as described by the rulebook(s) and (partly) outlined by @WindowWasher above.
Those are:

Surprise Strike (X) Submersible (X) On Station Treat Hostile Sea Zones as Friendly (X) Doesn’t Block Enemy Movement Can’t Hit Air Units Can’t Be Hit by Air Units (X)

An enemy destroyer cancels those unit characteristics marked with an (X).

@Moller said in Battleship/cruiser with destroyer vs submarine:

I tought without a destroyer you can’t detect a submarine so you can’t attacked the submarine.

This is not part of the rules, sorry.

@simon33 I mostly agree. I’m counting the 2 IPCs from west India, too – if you can take and hold India, you can probably also get west india.

The key map is number 4 where you see the German tanks make it back to Germany/Norway. Taking the transports out with planes to prevent this is the obvious solution but it may be more difficult if Italy has a navy. If you lose Gib on round 1 and Italy has a navy then you may not be able to defend seazone 102. Remember if the carriers take hits the planes sink. If USA Builds bombers instead then you make sure they cant land by taking Eire and consolidate the navy with the German navy.

There is obviously mistakes by both sides in this game but I’m just using it as an example. The best way to defeat Sealion is to avoid it all together by defending London and Gib on round 1.

I see what you guys are saying and I agree. I’ve been kicking around the idea to replace the $5 NO for Japanese control of Borneo, Celebes, Java and Sumatra with the following:

$5 for Japanese control of Okinawa, Formosa, Iwo Jima, Marianas, Palau, Caroline Islands and Marshall Islands. This occurs when Japan is at war with the Western Allies. So if UK and/or ANZAC declare war on Japan, with USA still neutral, then Japan will collect this NO.
I’ve also modified the $5 NO for Japanese control of Midway, Wake, Guam, Solomon Islands and Gilbert Islands. I changed it to $1 for control of each island.

I also removed the US NO of $10 for US control of Eastern US, Central US and Western US because I think that falls in the same category as the DEI NO. The continental US is worth $42 to the US all together, has all their main manufacturing plants and includes two Victory Cities, one of which is their capital. That’s more than enough incentive to not lose any of those three territories. However, I didn’t want to just take away US NO money, so I replaced it with the following:

$1 each for Allied control of the following: Midway, Wake Island, Guam, Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Palau, Marianas, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Formosa. This occurs when US is at war with Japan.

So you see, there is still the possibility for the US to make the full $10 in NO money, plus 3 of the Japanese Islands are worth $1 which will be an extra bonus. Also, since 3 of the islands are already US owned, the US can still collect $3 when at war with Japan but before their offensive gets moving.
I thought that might do something to get a little more action in these valueless islands. I wonder if I ought to change Japan’s because once the US is in the war, Japan’s NO is really easy to disrupt because the Marshall Islands are close to the US and they are unguarded. Do you think that I should remove the Marshalls from Japan’s NO?

Our games normally see the Germans build some fleet (including a couple tpts). Agreed Gibr gives many options (no AB makes it somewhat riskier), but if US comes to Norway via Gib (they can see it coming), then the Germans can delay it by simply building (or moving) a dd off coast of Normandy (sz 110) to block them for a turn. So the US (if is still going north) will normally kill the dd (move to sz 110), and have the UK build a carrier (add/planes) to try to keep the Germans from hitting them (provided the UK is still in the game). Then the US can probably take Norway (UK can land air to def), but the Germans again can be ready to counter it from the Baltic. Again our games usually see some navy builds for the Germans, and the western allies will need a good sized fleet to get close to shore.

Yes, I kill most of the RN. except sz 111. 2 subs on 109, 2 subs 2 ftr, 2 tac. on sz 110. 1 sub,1 cruiser, 1 ftr, 1 tac on 112. Norway ftr in France. All air can land in N. Italy. Bomber and Battleship on Russian fleet.

sz 111 is left untouched. 1 Battleship and 1 Cruiser along with sz 106 and 91 also untouched.

Not saying this wins the game, just a way to help Italy.