I think though, my beef lies more with the "S" than any other portion of the term. I tend to think of "strategy" as something connected with "thinking". There is no thinking with the mainstream conventional RTS genre. and, if you actually DO need to think while playing one, well, you have my sympathies on your stunted intellect
Calling a Close Combat game anything more than real time is unnecessary. Yes, it doesn't have turns, and that is about the extent of it. It plays in real time, as opposed to turn time.
Although the term "real" I think occasionally goes to some people's heads, as if the time used in turns is not a reflection of increments of actual time.
But there is no moronic resource gathering, nor production of units in steady streams. You don't get to do a Zerg rush, you either have an intelligent plan of attack before you even begin, or your opponent likely already owns you.
I wouldn't even own Close Combat if it had no genuine connection with the realm of tangible wargaming.
No one that plays ASL seriously, is likely to have much interest in wasting time on the conventional RTS offerings.
No game made to emulate Squad Leader is going to get far, if it's dummied down for a person that had never even experienced Squad Leader.
Close Combat, Combat Mission, and Steel Panthers are all seriously designed wargames. They took a differing path from each other, but they all had the same goal. A tangible feeling squad level wargame.
Nor is SPWAW. 
