From: Los Angeles, California
GI combat is much worse than an inadequate re-hash of the 'same old thing' (btw, there are an awful lot of cliches and generalizations going on around). GI combat was done by the same people who did the close combat series. It plays VERY similar. It is in no way a sim style of game, and is nothing like Panzer Commander, Panzer Elite, Combat Mission, Steel Beasts, and Battlefield 1942 (which, aside from the tank sims are about as different a set of games about war as you can muster). GI combat's real problem is that it isn't a very good game in the classical sense. It has a serious imbalance between its features and its interface. The way that the game was meant to be played is very poorly supported by its control scheme. They did what many games in the past have done poorly, and that's the transition to a 3d environment. Combat Mission succeeds here because it's turn based. Combat Mission has somewhat cumbersome controls and it doesn't have most intuitive or clear interface. In the end that's no big deal, the game is great and with a little effort you can play it the way it was intended (the way it was designed and tested). GI Combat doesn't have the same luxuries as Combat Mission. Since it's real-time the player is forced to interact with the controls and the interface under a lot of pressure. That's frustrating, and it becomes the most significant challenge of the game. Once mastered, it plays just like the Close Combat series (with the same old problems with vehicular pathfinding).
BTW Steel Beasts is an excellent tank sim, and it plays well. Panzer Commander sucked beans. Panzer Elite, although not as good at Steel Beast (IMHO), is still an excellent WW2 tank sim.