Leningrad or Stalingrad for a victory city?

Hey,

I want to add victory cities to my Axis and Allies map (it’s the “old” edition). Except for the Russian front, all the key territories are the same. But I’m having a really tough time deciding whether to use Leningrad in Karelia or Stalingrad in Caucasus as the USSR’s second victory city.

Karelia has an industrial complex, but can be attacked by a lot more on Germany’s first turn than Caucasus. However, Caucasus doesn’t have an industrial complex.

Caucasus is further away than Karelia - even if the German player does take Karelia, Caucasus is still 3 spaces away from Berlin and Rome - but nevertheless still borders right on Moscow (in the new game, there’s a space between Leningrad (the victory city) and Moscow) and disregarding victory cities, Karelia is much more desirable (IMHO).

Anyway, that’s the start of my personal debate (I’ve added more below, so that this post isn’t even bigger). My big question is obvious: which do you think would be a better choice of victory city on the old map, without altering the setup - Leningrad or Stalingrad? Is there one that would screw over a player TOO much?

One thing concerns me about Karelia. If Leningrad should be the victory city, should there be another territory between Karelia and Russia, so the Germans can’t be knocking on Moscow’s door RIGHT after taking Leningrad? Is Karelia too big as it is? I suppose realistically it’s alright, but what about playability?

So, my other big question (about the territories on the old A&A map) is: are they alright the way they are, or are changes necessary? I’d rather not alter the map unless I have to, but if it improves the game, then I guess that’s alright ;)

Please give me your opinion, I need some help! Sorry for the long post. Thanks a lot in advance!

As I said above, here’s my (current) debate on whether to choose Leningrad or Stalingrad as the USSR’s second victory city:

Karelia has an industrial complex, but can be attacked by a maximum of 9 inf, 7 tanks, 5 ftrs, 1 bmr, and a transport from Germany or Western Europe on Germany’s first turn alone (although whether that would be a GOOD idea is a totally different story). However, Caucasus doesn’t have an industrial complex, but can be attacked by “only” 3 inf, 3 tanks, 1 bmr, 3 ftrs (5 if the German player decides to risk AA fire), plus a battleship and a transport from either Southern Europe, Eastern Europe or Libya.

If Stalingrad is chosen as the victory city, the Soviet player has to split his forces, dividing his attention between the industrial complex in Karelia and the victory city in Caucasus. But losing Karelia is bad enough as it is - perhaps it’s too much of a blow to lose a victory city with it?

Also, having an industrial complex in the same territory as a victory city means you don’t have to take a turn to shuffle infantry to the victory city. But maybe that’s not a problem anyway, since you could clear out Karelia every turn and just fill it up again when you place your units.

Stalingrad as the victory city would prevent the German player from focusing his forces on Karelia, so maybe dividing up Soviet forces wouldn’t be so bad.

Not to mention that Stalingrad has GREAT historical implications - but that REALLY doesn’t matter ;). All that means is if there’s ABSOLUTELY no difference between using Stalingrad and Leningrad, I’d choose Stalingrad - but it’s much more important to pick the better one.

Finally, choosing Stalingrad as the victory city may deter the Soviets from attacking as much, since there would be two very important territories to watch out for. But I don’t really know … obviously if the game is Russia Restricted anyway, that wouldn’t make a difference (on the first turn at least), but if not it may help the Axis if Russia is more scared of attacking.

So that’s what I’ve come up with on my own. I don’t know which arguments win out. And, if you can come up with any more arguments, please do. Thanks again, in advance :)

OK, here comes my second reply to my own question (this doesn’t mean I’m excluding anyone else!)

What I’ve boiled it down to is:

Does using Leningrad (Karelia) as a victory city make it too easy for the Axis, since they could take the city AND an industrial complex? Victory cities should be challenging to take, after all.

Or, does using Stalingrad (Caucasus) make it too easy for the Russians, and therefore, the Allies? The Axis is disadvantaged at the beginning of the game as it is, not to mention two of the victory cities are in the US.

So … which of the above is more correct?

That’s a good point … Leningrad being the vc doesn’t add much spice to the game - Karelia may be too good of a prize, plain and simple. You don’t think that adds to the Allies’ favour, them already having an inherent advantage and all?

Thanks for the input Kaladesh … I appreciate it, but I don’t understand how there’s been 82 views of this post and only 5 replies (3 of which are my own)! Is this question just blatantly obvious? Because I really couldn’t figure it out on my own … In any case, so far I’ve heard the case for Stalingrad; does anyone have a point for using Leningrad as a victory city?
(At the very least, vote in the poll!)

Nope … I guess I’ll just use Stalingrad. I think you’re right - getting an IC AND a victory city would be too big a prize.