Yes and no.
Yes: Because in comparison with other games in this category (e.g. Harpoon) Command offers better modelling of older systems like unguided torpedoes, depth charges, _much_ better modelling of the factors affecting guns and other unguided weapons, better warhead/armor/damage modelling, improved blast models, better tactical AI (incl. things like OODA cycles) etc. etc. Weather also has a much bigger effect .
No: Because in comparison with other titles more targeted on this era and scale (e.g. WitP, CaW or TF1942) Command lacks the strategic-level elements (e.g. industrial production, political directions and contraints etc.) that are useful for modelling such conflicts. Certain technological (e.g. subs without snorkels, effects of plunging fire, significant comms delays etc.) and AI (e.g. deliberately crossing the T) elements that heavily influence tactical combat are also absent since these became much less critical/prevalent post-war. Furthermore, lots of early platforms are not currently included since our DB focus is on units that survived WW2 and saw service also post-war. (The latter can of course be remedied if you cooperate with the DB authors and provide all the information needed to faithfully model early platforms).
Considering that despite its WW2-relevant limitations Harpoon has already seen WW2 scenarios and databases with some success, it is reasonable to state that one can create WW2-themed tactical/operational scenarios in Command with good results, provided that the weaknesses and limitations of the game for this era are recognised and worked around or avoided.
TL;DR version: The "modern" word is in the title for a reason
< Message edited by Sunburn -- 2/9/2013 12:41:31 PM >