I have found this set of rules to be fast flowing and easy to pick up and play but hard to master tactically. The game writers have concentrated on developing a game that encourages the use of real tactics through the end results. A example of this would be sending your tank over a hill by itself then wondering why it went boom. Instead, you position a unit or two to keep the area under surveillance as the tank rolls forwards. Then as that nasty milan blows the tank up, your unit who is watching opens up on the Milan, blowing it away with its reaction to the fire. This is a great idea. Instead of having a traditional overwatch you can react to threats and situations as they happen but the rules limit this through a simple but clever mechanism. I have not come across a situation were the rules force you to do something unrealastic, like letting the enemy squad walk past your hidden machine gun because it’s not your turn to act.
Tanks are not some super vehicle that will win you the game; they have a restricted vision so as in my previous example, you need to support them. To truly master the game you need to operate your forces as a unit supporting and backing up one another. The infantry follow the same principles as the vehicles but with a simple difference in tactics to makes them act realistically. However, I think it is debatable as to whether they move slightly too fast or not.
These rules work best in a scenario game where you have a objective. Due to the scope of the rules, the objectives can be as diverse as having to lay a bridge over the river with your bridge layer, capturing a fortified position with realistic artillery support or ‘simply’ reconning a enemy position. If you can think of it, the rules probably have a simple but in-depth mechanic for it.
So overall, I would recommend these rules to anyone who wants a set of rules they can use to cover WW2 to modern. You can play the tactics of real warfare without worrying about playing the rule mechanics.