Still, the one thing the game could have done to make itself stand out is to implement some form of delegation. Certainly the AI appears capable - though I could not get the skirmish mode to work, toggles exist to determine an allied AI's tendencies and adjust its preference for offensive, balanced, or defensive strategies, and whether it favors heavily armored or airborne units. If the player were given AI assistants of random personalities, this could have generated interesting dynamics in play and simultaneously reduce the user workload.

Decent AI helps Metal Fatigue's showing and keep it from embarrassing itself in a genre filled with failures. Unfortunately, it is not free of problems. I was unable to test the skirmish AI fully in Metal Fatigue because I couldn't get the skirmish mode to work, which behaved as if it was expecting a LAN game instead of a solitaire game. The multiplayer mode supports LAN and Internet play, but in general the documentation is poor here, and is completely lacking for the skirmish mode. There are some handy tutorials available but Metal Fatigue's level of detail warrants a better manual.

Keeping track of the immense detail on three levels of play is simply too much for most players. Navigating the action, especially in battles where the opponents start with a numeric advantage, is mind numbing. It's an example of an affliction many RTS games suffer, where something intended as play is tedious enough to qualify as work. In fairness, there are tactics the player can use, such as using the underground or dropping in from orbit to bypass formidable surface defenses. Many of the scenarios seem to have a couple of gimmicks like this, so frustrating wars of attrition need not always be the recourse. Even with this, the AI has a decided advantage, able to monitor inputs and handle rote tasks faster than most humans do.