QUOTE(frags @ Sep 19 2007, 01:39 PM)
You know...i can agree with you...GC2 had loads of personality..probably even a higher unit count for the player too...WiC really limits it to a lower number...
I think the best description is from a review i read...WiC is a tactical strategy game...its all about tactical strikes etc...In GC2 it kinda like Supcom where you have the infantry in the front line and vehicles supporting them and the arty firing from afar(very beautiful graphics those arty

they let off fireworks) so its an entire strategic experience...
WiC you look at it from a tactical point of view...you think only about the role you are in and less about everything else...
I would say that WiC is not an RTS... However, WiC takes the cake over GC2 any day.
Somehow, the more RTS-friendly changes introduced in GC2 never sat quite well with me. It killed the whole tactical focus of the game (Which was the focus of the original).
I dunno, the best way I can describe it would be to call it "Battlefield - RTS style". Its basically Conquest with different classes but instead of individual players, you've got different divisions of the army. Sure, the limited points make it a very tactical game, but it brings it into RTS territory with the Tactical Aid points. Not being the insta-kill solutions from Company of Heroes, it does give the game some strategic depth like do you wait to save your teammates under fire or save up enough points to do some serious damage.
Plus, it isn't even that tactical really since everything dies ridiculously fast making you rely more on managing losses, tactical aids and deciding how to deploy your troops effectively or more verbosely... the big picture.
All I'm saying is, though it lacks the strategic depth of a full-blown RTS, it certainly is more strategic than tactical.