Strategy? What strategy?
That pretty much says it all. Act of War looks and feels like a real-time strategy game, but I think it barely qualifies in the strategy department. The graphics may be spectacular, and with all the bells and whistles, everything looks amazing. The shadows in particular are something that I don't think I've ever seen quite as dramatically in any other RTS.
But it is a strategy game, regardless of the graphical quality. It is a strategy game in a sense, if you consider "attack-move" a strategy. That's pretty much the extent of it. Oh, also, "don't garrison buildings" is another good strategy, as your units will actuallt die FASTER when garrisoned inside a building, unless of course, the enemy only has infantry. A single tank can kill a building-full of people in a few shots, while the same people spread out over open ground take at least a few seconds to run over.
Strategy in this game is paramount, namely, build a bunch of each type of unit availible to you, then tell them all to attack-move the enemy base. If that doesn't work, just make sure you have a few more guys the next time around.
OF course there are the traditional air units and the traditional anti-air units, and the tanks, and the anti-tanks. A good rule of thumb is: if you have enough of every unit, you'll be able to counteract just about every enemy unit. Then the only thing to worry about is having more units than the enemy. A medevac helicopter comes in handy sometimes, too.
Command and Conquer: Red Alert has Act of War beat on the strategy front. Even the quite repetitive gameplay of Starcraft has at least some strategic element. Act of War: Direct Action is first and foremost a spiffy looking war simulation. Who said war had to involve strategy? Apparently not Atari.