From: The Great White North!
the scenario designers nightmare,
You've got that right.
In the army the saying goes 'No plan survives first contact with the enemy', I found out long ago that the same holds true for scenario design only replace 'enemy' with 'player or play-tester'.
A couple tenants that I try and follow when building scenarios are:
-They are meant to support the story I have rattling around in my head, so that is the first priority but that goes mostly for setup.
-Players deserve options. Playing CMO is a bit of a commitment, to get good you have probably spent hours counted in hundreds or more, to play through Northern Fury is even more of a commitment. So I like to allow the player several (hard) choices to test what s/he has learned with all that effort. That normally means the scenarios get a little larger, but not always.
-There are no silver bullets. Relegate those to Hollywood. No single weapon system will solve your problem, so I try and show that a coordinated and integrated approach is better than riding in on your white stallion. You don't always win in the classic sence, if one side always won, there wouldn't be war and we wouldn't teach defence doctrine. So adjust what victory means for the player.
-Gaming should be an experience, so give as much depth and visceral feeling as you can. A lot of this is just what I call the wallpaper - messages, background in the brief etc. Some is in the play, try and set it up so the attack almost gets through, that bit takes testing and I don't always get it right the first time.
-Realism, I've got a bit of experience with decision makers at this level so I try and portray some of the dilemmas they face. Logistics, try and put something in every scenario, you can never escape it. Realism goes much deeper than the number of airframes available I think.
I certainly don't get all of this right in every scenario, sometimes I don't get any of it right.
To respond to the original question from bladesinger79
Firstly, well played. I have not heard of anyone else doing that well. Yours is an outcome that I wouldn't want in my story because it would pretty much end the story.
So what would the Soviets do? I don't think they would have continued. The Amphib op would be diverted into the Narvik area as it is a supporting operation and if the main operation was going awry this part would need to change. By quickly seizing Narvik they would be supporting a slower land push. The company sized force in Banak and other land elements north of Bardufoss are now a hinderance, the plan called for them to be swatted away but now they have warning and will need to be dug out with a spoon. There is an Army coming their way, it will take longer and will be bloody but they cannot hold.
Looking at the Soviet Objectives in Plan BOYAR (these are distilled a bit):
-Strategic - NATO dissolution and economic/political freedom
-Operational - On this front it is to threaten NATO SLOC and contribute to the strategic objective by knocking Norway out of the war
-Tactical - Get as far south as possible as quickly as possible to give NATO difficult tactical choices while supporting the objective of knocking Norway out of the war and securing the eastern flank of forces threatening the SLOCs
So a failure to capture Banak in the first few hours causes problems but it does not unhinge the plan.
Anyway those are my thoughts on it. Open to rebuttals