Not a trick question...I think you may have read a bit too much into the poll quite frankly.
I simply am running the poll to get an idea of where the interests of my fellow SPWAWer's lay.
Call it a form of research. I am looking for data to utilize when the need arises to have possible scenario material at hand. So, what better way to find out what people would like to see more of than to simply ask them?
So, I guess you can just look at it as a "general question".
Russian Civil War.
Russo-Japanese War, with the Whites vs. The Reds vs. The Japanese vs. The US (in/around Vladivostok). Read about that in, I think, "Military History" magazine.
Europe: '39-40
I'd love to do more Poland stuff. Poland vs. the Russians? Poland vs. the Germans?
Balkans:
I have no idea what went on here, but I know some serious shiznitz went down.
Asian Mainland:
ChiComs vs. Kuomindang vs. Imperial Japan.
In general, more campaigns that allow you to deviate from history. Dammit, if my actions would have made a difference, I want them to. And dammit, if your design paradigm is that the player's successes (and failures) are indicative of the entire military's, then for example if I'm Poland and I annihilate the German advance, I'd better not be forced back to Krakow just because "That's what came next in history." If I'm Tojo and I get my butt handed to me in the Phillipines, I'd better have a tough going of it all over--what with the US and their allies having that Area of Ops secured.
I hate being railroaded into a plot in my RPG's, and I consider wargaming to be an RPG: I'm Playing the Role of commander in the Game.
It's a curse Irinami, you might as well get used to it. At the tactical level you are not running the "big picture".
In my last Long Campaign in Steel Panthers I did so well it would have been more fun if I had been handed my butt a few times to relieve the boredom.
43 battles and 40 of them decisive wins. I went through Stalingrad easier than I went through Poland in 39.
But in the bigger grand strategy scope games, if they don't model aaaaaaany historical conditions, then you are just not playing a WW2 game during the time period in question.
The only way to get pure satisfaction is with games like Victory the Blocks of War. Its Red vs Blue. No messy historical basis to mess up your game. If your strategy sucks, you get treated to a trashing by your opponent.
I passed on getting Strategic Command for just that reason. The game spends to much time fussing on details, and then throws away historical realism. You end up with a game that tries to do it half way, and pretend you can have a 100% experience.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
I may not be running the big picture, but if I regularly grind up divisions in ten minutes (not that my tactics can, but as a purposely exaggerated example), I think the enemy is going to have some particular manpower and machinery shortages. Taken on it's own, that might not affect the war a whole lot. You go home a day earlier, whuppee. But if the designer (the original arbitrer of what their campaign means) decides the player's actions are indicative of the results of similar units...
Well if every Bde. on one side were accounting for a division of the opponent, then there ought well be a different outcome. That's something I liked about Panzer General. You could avoid certain disasters if you made a great accounting for your unit (which I believe was assumed to be exemplary of all the units in the Wermacht). Unlike other games, if you were annihilating the enemy at every turn, you would not be driven back to Berlin... instead you may even lead the assault on D.C.
All hanging, of course, on whether the player's units' actions are considered exemplary of other similar units on their side or not.
I was attacking Poland. And the Poles sent more armour at me in one fight than the nation actually owned.
Naturally I was a bit annoyed.
In grand strategy the force pools are more or less limited in board games, but in computer games you get the sort of lunacy that is currently the cause of beefs for some of the Strategic Command crowd.
In tactical up to operational, if the unit dies, you are out a unit.
In Steel Panthers if you waste all their tanks and don't get a scratch, there should be repercussions. If this is done several times, the other side is facing a disaster.
This is the same as an operational games seeing them lose a few good units and you not.
At the grand strategy level this is called a breakthrough.
Breakthroughs in grand strategy cause serious results.
I have seen some really awesome upsets in higher echelon games.
There are repercussions.
For a game to not allow repercussions is therefore ill advised.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
I am looking for data to utilize when the need arises to have possible scenario material at hand. So, what better way to find out what people would like to see more of than to simply ask them? 
