Allied Destroyers do not negate the defending SS abilities?

Bear in mind, the land units on the transport only act on their Turn.

@thedesertfox

Yeah, I’ve read that and I believe it. I think until 1943 or 1944 the Americans had more ground units in the Pacific?

Yeah, the US built a ton of ships. For some reason the US never gets to seemingly similar numbers in the game.

@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.

In addition to Young Grasshopper’s point, you seem to be sending up outnumbered interceptors. Don’t do this. Leave them on the ground until you have probably more defenders than attackers. Defenders can be worthwhile on the ground in the sense of tying down the Luftwaffe though. If the odds are even, trading fighters for fighters is a negative for the defender in the event of a sea lion.

It may help with an all out KJF plan if Russia decides to ignore the German advance and become a thorn in Japan’s side.

It may allow for more US resources to be directed at Europe, but they may be too little too late if Moscow were to fall easily and/or earlier than it should to the Germans.

I’ve played it out a few times, with significant Russian intervention in China, but Russia gets zero economic benefit and places a lot of resources in China that have little impact mid-late game for a crippled or defeated Moscow.

As the highest quality play by Japan is minor IC on the mainland, Japan can send 3 Mech with aircraft flown over them to clear out small infringements of the Russians in China.

IF I were to create problems for Japan, on R1 I would:
Buy 1 Arm, 2 Mech, place them in Stalingrad.
Move 1 Arm, 1 Mech from Moscow to Stalingrad.
Keep the 1 Arm, 1 Mech that start in Stalingrad there.
Fly your 2 Ftr and 1 Tac to Stalingrad.
R2 move into China (Sikang)
UK2 DOW on Japan (if not already at war) move all ground units into Yunnan, which hopefully is a reinforcement, but it may be a liberation depending on how China does there.
R3, move those units from Sikang into Yunnan, reinforcing the Brits and probably halting a Japanese takeover of the Burma road there.

I’m not suggesting this strategy. But it WOULD create problems for a Japan player that does not build IC on the mainland.  Additionally, if UK has to DOW on Japan, this places the US out of the war for a while, which further hurts Moscow in the long run.

Of course, those fast moving units in Stalingrad can:
Be redirected to NW Persia on R2 if at war, and they are more than enough to claim Iraq and get some additional income for Moscow - so there IS flexibility.  
If Moscow is still waiting for war, those units can all move directly to Bryansk on R2 and be in position for a R3 Strafe anywhere in Russia that Germany ends up on G3.

Personally I’d suggest one of the two options directly above before intervening in China.  There is little economic benefit unless you are in a KJF Allied strategy where bogging the Japanese down in China creates immense economic problems.  In particular I wouldn’t want Russia playing a defensive strategy in China throwing its units to the wind.  I’d rather be able to blitz across Northern China, far away from any Japanese IC and/or reinforcements.

(The way I play Germany:)
Create 1 huge army that marches into Russia and arrives in Bryansk G5, ready to attack Moscow G6, together with purchases from G5 (aircraft in Berlin/fast in Ukraine). Purchases in G1/2/3/4/5 are always aimed at maximally reinforcing this marching ‘deathball’, like ghr and Demandr described.

Russia has no choice but to surrender Leningrad+Ukraine and Germany should gladly take them with some token forces (1 to 2 inf + air).

What the Allies CAN do about this (very generally speaking because of all the variables): Russia retreats into Moscow while building a lot of inf + ART(!). RAF helps to defend it. UK + USA getting strong at Gibraltar/London + Middle East and, very important, setting up ‘bomber command’. Comes G6 Germany cannot attack Moscow because it is too heavily defended. Luftwaffe is tied into Russia (making life easier for the allies preparing for DDay) because otherwise Russia begins counter-attacking, ending the German presence there. Germany can take Caucasus + Stalingrad but NOT in force because then the Russians can break out where it is most effective, attacking and destroying the German army defending Bryansk if there is still some there. If there is not, because all the Germans are in Caucasus/Stalingrad, what is to stop Russia from retaking Leningrad, Ukraine and all those juicy eastern-european countries? Nada.
Too bad this game has no ‘out-of-supply’ rules as this is exactly what happend in Russia, starving the massive German army in Stalingrad.

In the pacific, the USA + ANZAC have Allied task number 1: prevent an Axis (Pac 6VC) win. This does not mean Japan has to be killed (though you can certainly try), but Hawai + Sydney must be held. If Japan crushes India this is an easy job. If Japan clearly invests in taking Hawai/Sydney (luckily the USA goes after Japan so can react), the task is more difficult, but India will be safe  longer and can even become strong strong strong if Japan focuses too much on Hawai. Most Japanese players I have seen, invest heavily into taking India and Middle East and THEN they try to take Hawai/Sydney. This gives the USA breathing space to invest around 20% per turn into the Pacific, spending 80% of its income into Europe. By the time Japan is ready to invest into taking Hawai the USA can switch to near 100% into Pacific (depending on the Japanese investments) without a problem because its forces in Europe are already massive.

Note that I am using the LL system in my games (and posts) to predict/dictate what major powers must do to stay alive. The LL system is usually pretty accurate and if the dice screw you up, well, then it’s the dice, not strategy, that cost you the game.

I was looking for something clear like that but could not find it. Thank you very much for taking the time. I appreciate it.

Well silly me answering w/o my map handy