If only a PC game powerhouse fleshed out the idea into a blockbuster.
Battlezone is the first successful attempt at briding the gap between the trenches and the command center. By starting from a foot soldier who face the constant reality of death and working your way up, you can appreciate the harshness of war when you at last sit in your com center and send a squad of tanks on a suicide mission. More importantly, even then you realize that as a commander in the field, the enemy can and frequently do seek out and kill you. Yet as you sit in your tank watching buildings spring up around you and fresh comrades roll out of the barracks, you draw strength from knowing war is fought in teams, with someone competent commanding and managing logistics, and you are not alone.
There is a reason why all militaries of the world promote academy graduates directly onto the battlefield and not the C&C. It is what the ideal war game should be. Unfortunately, such a game requires technology and effort far beyond what any game developer is willing to put into a game. It is in effect three games: a RTS, a FPS, and a simulation (should vehicle be involved) with the added complexity of seamless transition between states.
BF is working toward that goal from the FPS end. Some RTS are working from the other direction with veterancy and persistent units. However, Battlezone took the first and boldest step to remind us what the final product has at its core: a multi-level, open-ended combat experience where each player has a role yet is not restricted and death grips the lowest grunt to the highest commander. In a nuclear war, not even the president of the United States is immune.