This is an issue of personal taste obviously, but will try to tackle it one by one:
-Being a `realism-is-good` type of guy, I wouldn't mind having slightly repetitive missions, where we don't engage 50 enemies each time we go out of the bunker. Normally, in a war, only a small fraction of missions actually result in a firefight. Therefore, a `realistic soldier experience` should reflect that. That said, the tunnel missions of VietCong were utterly frustrating; perhaps it is possible to strike a balance between fun gaming and realism (tipping the scales on the latter's side if possible).
-Keeping several characters all the way through the campaign is actually a good idea; CWC pulled it rather nicely, IMHO.
-I don't mind playing the nobody. And I don't want my character to be a hero mission after mission either. Perhaps the focus should be on `survival`, rather than accomplishing the mission each time. The missions I liked most were the first ones, where Armstrong is under the command, and tackling the mission with a team.
-As can be guessed from the above, I think a given soldier rarely has the chance to see `the greater picture`. He is able to see only his small theatre of operations. Receiving news about the general going of the war helps set out a realistic atmosphere, though. I am also in favour of dynamic campaigns (who isn't), but the entire outcome of the war is not decided by your actions. You are merely a soldier. You have to save your arse to be able to fight the next day, if you can complete the mission and save a few of your buddies, that's fine.
-This means fighting on an island is not necessary, for example, in a WW2 game, I would be content to see, say western half of stalingrad.
-Why are we limited to United States vs others, US vs. Russia scenarios? There are many different small scale possible conflicts.
For example, in 1974, Turkey and Greece came rather close to war due to Cyprus, which ended in the Turkish military `invasion` of a third of the island. Each side will tell you a different story, of course; but the Turks accuse the Greek side of practising ethnic cleansing and guerilla warfare, sanctioned by the predominantly Greek government of Cyprus. To counter the attacks of Greek guerillas, the Turks formed thier own guerilla forces. The political agreements (I think) allowed legal intervention by Britain, Greece and Turkey, as protectorate states. After some months, Turkey, against the will of US, commenced an attack with paratroopers and amphibious landing craft. Greece did not intervene, but to give you a feel for the scale of things, Turks had attacked one of their own destroyers, thinking it was a Greek ship trying to attack the Turkish forces! The war ended before long, due to international pressure, but not before the Greeks downed a Turkish bomber. Can you imagine how many different scenarios you can make out of that?
Perhaps one of the Arab-Israeli wars? Last 60 years is choke full of such small scale military operations.
I know such issues can be a political minefield, as each side has its healthy supply of die-hard fans. However, I am sure imaginary scenarios can be devised using them as some sort of baselines.
