From: Cross Lanes WV USA
My personal gaming preference is the ETO rather than the PTO, mainly due to the greater variety of terrain and weather and opponents in the ETO.
My planned ANZAC campaign will focus on a small ("double-strength" battalion) combat group that will be shuttled all over the world, starting in the late summer of 1940 in North Africa. I just like the idea of getting my licks in against all the major Axis allies (Germany, Japan, and Italy) under all sorts of different conditions.
I have no problem with that. I think a misconception started a long time ago -- the New Zealanders contributed one division to the Allied war effort, but the lion's share was done by the Aussies. Nevertheless, the WWI designation of ANZAC was put into the database.
If you wanna do the Aussies right, then, yeah, you start against the Germans. However, they vastly reconfigured their TOEs to match their later commitments against the Japanese. This makes upgrade paths questionable.
The Aussies had NO tanks in New Guinea in 1942. So, what do you do? I have no idea. The old argument about type 1 vs type 2 gaming comes back. It is meaningless. What do you want to achieve? That's all that matters, right?
My philosophy: I want to learn about the history, set the historical parameters in the game as best I can, and see if I can do better in the conduct of the battles.
Another gamer has a different approach? That's fine with me.
No one way of gaming is better than any other, IMHO.
I also love the AARs/DARs. As long as the parameters are defined, then take literary license and make them entertaining. I think it's a great outlet.