OK… just a thought on this whole “minor” voctory thing and the 8 victory city game…
The reason that a Minor/8 Point game is impractical is that there are some REALLY great strategies that work very well for the Allies… IF they ignore their “at risk” victory cities.
But, how willing was Russia to actually give up Lenningrad? They pouted EVERYTHING in to keep that city from falling to Germany, and it is one of the most famous sieges in history.
Likewise, UK was not willing to give up India, fighting every strip of beach, small island, and half-dry coral atoll all along the Indian/Pacific boundary
Perhaps the point of those particular Victory Cities is to get the Allies to play something more like the war was ACTUALLY fought.
And of course, by destroying the West Russia Stack maneuver, and by preventing UK from bandoning/weakening India in order to save Egypt… well, that gets things a bit more back in line with history…
The only things I would add though under that circumstance is a UK controlled island in SZ14 to represent Malta, split New Guinea to allow for the existence of Port Moresby, and add a contested territory, Burma, between FIC and India.
Sorry if this bleeds into House Rules with the recomended board changes. But thought addressing a practical reason to FORCE Russia to defend Lenningrad and UK to defend India might be worthwhile.