Which of these PzC would you like to see?

[-72-]

"And suggesting we build a map 1000 hexes long on a 1 km scale covering uninhabited mountains when we can look at ....what is it ... 20 or so titles, where we know the typical size of the maps, is perhaps a tad bit unreasonable. And if you even thought that could work and then saw the full campaign on this monster map would lasted 3 months or 900 turns than folks could would instantly be able to tell that it is not a serious title and move to the next one on the list."

I take it you are meaning Norway, Glenn. And I understand where you are coming from with that I guess, however too, there are other ways to show that map in terms of the areas where action was likely or relevant. Now I've heard other designers talking about "letting the gamer decide", and that is a valid point, however in the case on 1940, really the infrastructure of that country is mostly what determined where any meaningful action would have taken place.

The main, remote, but important area in Norway is around Narvik, and probably a few others in between there and where the northernmost point of the 1940 contiguous Norwegian rail net extended to. Maybe Namsos is one of the areas in between Narvik and this point - but I'm not looking at a map right at the moment (and am going on memory).

Conceivably these areas could be placed on a compressed map area much like what you already did with El Alamein and Malta. Also if needed I suppose that path links between each of these areas could be made similar to some boardgames' off map movement charts where a path of hexes (probably sealanes) is created between the more remote points (say Narvik.). Of course too I could be off on how large an area that the rail net covered (but then again inaccessible areas wouldn't necessarily need to be mapped either. I suppose that could lead to a relatively ugly map with loads of impassable terrain. However, that, may well have been Norway in 1940.

Given the strategy options that the PzC engine uses, it could be possible maybe to provide some variability in terms of who a side is sending where, and probable when (given the designers' best guesstimate).

Another consideration is that France '40 did not take in all of France, or even the entire campaign, but enough of it; so I am not sure why a Norwegian campaign would have to be treated any differently as to what has gone on before.

So I did vote for Norway, but my vote wasn't necessarily for a portrayal of the entire country, but more maybe a more limited approach could maybe be more workable, and consistent with what you'd done before. Anyways, that was what I was thinking when I voted (and in the past whenever I'd mentioned it). :)

And really all this is , is defending my vote as not necessarily completely unrealistic.... now as a business decision on whether it would sell or not --- that is an entirely different ball game.