Yeah, its' quite bland, and yeah, its' pretty simplistic in its' mission design. But it dumps all over "Soldiers: HOWW2"

User Rating: 8 | Blitzkrieg (2003) PC
Why does it better "Soldiers: Heroes Of World War II", a much lauded and enthused-over combat RTS? Because of the following:

1/ The colour pallette is no blander than "Soldiers". They're both as unexciting as a night mission from "Sudden Strike".

2/ The logistics side of mechanized re-inforced infantry warfare (most important in any company-or-higher engagement) is still very important, and is treated pretty well in "Blitzkrieg". You go from being a Company or Regimental S2 (Intelligence) and S3 (Planning & Operations) to an S4 (logistics) staffer very quickly when shells/ bullets start letting loose. In "Soldiers", this is handled in detail to the point of being ridiculous. You don't know who you are at times. In essence you almost are thrust into the games' mechanics, rapidly becoming an expert in personal level logistics, while fighting a battle as a commander simulateneously. It is TOO detailed. After a while you begin having intra-staff arguments where you are the only member of staff...and with the soldiers (er...you again) as well. If you refuse to obey your own orders, you'd have to courtmarshall and shoot yourself, while finding a replacement for yourself at the same time and win the next puzzle. Whew, where's my medication.

3/ "Blitzkrieg" is quite precise with its' unit designs, behaviours and general combat resolutions (damage hit points etc.). "Sudden Strike" is so far off, I'll leave it out. "Soldiers" is so caught up in ridiculous exactness (eg. refilling tanks by hand in the midst of a melee) that you quickly begin to feel that the gameplay becomes hard work. I don't play computer games, even 'authentic' simulations to the point where they are arduous and just a series of chores to complete the objective. I'll go to work for that, not my games.

4/ It can be repetitive, but then so is war. Ask anyone involved in the too often forgotten campaign to break the Gothic Line (mostly involving the Battle of the Somme-like Monte Cassino) that was overshadowed by D-Day. It was daily, repetitive hard slog. So was much of the North African campaign once it became fairly static midway thru 1943.

5/ Neglected campaigns, like the Norwejan and the French defensive battles are presented here. So for historical interest, rather than popular interest (Normandy, Kursk, Stalingrad, Berlin...yawn) these vicious fights are a welcome change.

6/ The game is not great as such, but it is more authentic than "Sudden Strike", less oh-so-painfullly accurate than "Soldiers", and more realistic (though less 'pretty') than "Codename Panzers...". Overall, it is has the goods from all of the above, & can even draw a sly smirk from the player at times at the intelligent AI. It then rates your abilities after each engagement. This can actually inspire you to replay the battle...just to show that darn AI that you are a misunderstood Napoleon-in-the-making!!!

Historical Note: Hitler, when in the final planning stage of the Ardennes Offensive (inaccurately still named "Watch on the Rhine" as the codename was changed to "Autumn Mist" when the attack date was changed from Nov.25 to Dec.10)
said that he lost a lot of his respect for Napoleon as he only had to fight co-alition armies prone to disintegrate in battle. 'nuff said!!!