Yes, it’s any 2 Soviet cities. Cities are only territories in the shape of a circle (or semi-circle on coastlines). We tried to remove all of the other city names from the V-2 map and replace them with regional names.

Murmansk does not have a circular territory and therefore is not considered a city territory. It exists in the territory of Kola. The only reference I’ve seen for those types of cities like Vladivostock and Murmansk is Red Cities in the Elite of the Soviet Union expansion set. I think they were probably put there for aesthetics.

What part of that is not legal in classic?

This is the Global 40 Forum. Why bother arguing the rules of Global 40 using the rules of a different game. They are not the same game. None of them are the same game and that’s why there’s a different forum for each game here at A&A dot org. Take your discussion over there if you’re not interested in discussing the rules of Global 40 in this forum.
Nobody cares what we think about the rules of Global 40 and how they make sense. Those are the rules of the game and anything else is a house-rule.

Not being able to bridge into an amphibious assault after clearing a sea zone results in a pretty weird rules glitch. It results in people doing some strange moves like Italy building a destroyer and dropping it onto an oversized US fleet just to take advantage of this glitch. It makes sense that transports cannot unload / amphibious assault if the sea zone has enemy surface ships present, but not being able to bridge into an amphibious assault once the sea zone is clear doesn’t seem to fit the spirit of the game.

What you’re advocating for is the ability to have a second Combat Movement Phase. That would be no different than taking a territory in combat and then combat moving units through that territory to attack another territory. You have to make all of your combat moves at the same time before you begin combat or that breaks the spirit of the game.
I’m not sure how many different ways he has to explain to you that loading and unloading a transport into a hostile territory is a combat move. Your assertion that a ground unit can step on one end of a transport and step off the other end into a different territory is perplexing. It’s not a bridge as you contend, it’s a ship that transports units across the water. It makes no difference whether the destination is in the same sea zone or 3 sea zones away. Bridging is simply a term that’s used to describe the move. We also use the term “can opener” yet no cans need to be opened to accomplish it. It’s just a term.
In your example you state that dropping a Destroyer in water to prevent a fleet from amphibiously assaulting in incorrect. The attacking player can kill the Destroyer and assault the territory on the same turn. The thing they can’t do is load the transport in that sea zone. The rules of the game are very specific and at times a little quirky, but they are fair for both sides. You have to learn to use those quirks to your advantage in order to truly appreciate them. It’s called strategy.
Here are some of the quirky transport rules demonstrated;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkj_9K3lfQk

The KMT must own one end of the Burma Road and The FEC own the other end in order for the road to be open. It represents the supply chain between the Chinese Nationalists and the British. If the CCP is in Yunnan then that supply chain is broken and the KMT doesn’t receive the benefits of the Burma Road.

The goal from the original concept of the Global War series was that they could be linked. They only have one game out so far so the immediate goal is to put out all of the stand alone games.
HBG is working on an interwar game for the period between WW1 and WW2. I don’t think each war would be directly set up to be a continuation of the previous war, but rather that they would effect each one subtly. You might see a few setup changes rather than wholesale changes to alliances, etc. The interwar game would really be a bridge between the 2 wars based on how the first one ended.
That’s what the idea is, who knows how that will evolve going forward. I’m looking forward to seeing what they come up with.

Aside from what Chris said, you also roll for the Vichy ships too.

That rule hasn’t changed. Surrounding Paris in V-2 meant French surrender as well. It’s in the surrender conditions on the French national reference sheet.

@IDK-ANYMORE I think this is it
https://www.shapeways.com/product/PJATW3WAW/landkreuzer-p-1000-ratte-germany-1-600-qty-1?optionId=57306999&li=shops

I have a couple of these but they’re a bit more expensive. They are the right size for a heavy battleship on your board.
https://www.shapeways.com/product/U28L5CCS2/a-150-super-yamato-japan-gw1936-scale?optionId=64692643&li=shops&url=login%2Fjson-shapeways&url=forward

@CaptainNapalm I should explain it a little better. The best unit an infantry can target select is a vehicle class unit. They can also choose artillery and infantry class units . They can’t choose an air class unit and obviously not a naval unit.

The point of my video was to show how infantry class units could be worth more if concentrated in cities. In a battle if you’re you’re exchanging your infantry and militia for the opposition’s more expensive units like tanks, mechs, and artillery you’re going to eventually wear them down.