Fun / Setting versus realism and an RTS
It's a very pretty game graphically and it sets the mood just right in cutscenes, storyboards and with the voiceovers.
The pace is fast and at times frantic but difficulty isn't over the top.
Someone else mentioned a few issues he had with the realism of eg. China joining on the Soviet side and the whole "close quarters" concept.
Well you can't really have that in a pop RTS.
If you wan't to go up from a squad level and command something else than troops you have to forego realism.
Eg.
An MLRS (rocket artillery) have probably a 40 km. range in real life.
Within those 40 miles you could have hundreds if not thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks, choppers, jeeps and so on.
It's just not feasible to up the scope of the game so much.
Even if the graphics could handle it the AI of the game would be simulating hundreds of decision makers down the line of command.
And regarding the Chinese joining the Soviets. In game it comes as a surprice to the Americans too. Nevertheless it's just a comment to put the pressure just right for the next missions.
Perhaps these things distracted the other guy so much from the game that it lowered his experience with it. That was not the case at all for me.
PS. I tried the harpoon series and it really isn't that fun to have to rearm planes and refuel them all the time while looking at a 2D symbolic image of the battlefield.