Hmm, it's fine on my system, and the ads are just on the loading screens anyway.

I always thought that the ad supported version was for america only. Oh well, I'd sooner pay for it on gog and get extras rather than get it free with ads and possibility of it not working.
I've got the original xbox version to tide me over till then, I only want the PC ones for coop play anyway
Hmm, since it was made by pandemic, I suppose that means its owned by ea now...

CURSES! damn you EA! I had forgotten that Pandemic was owned by EA. This discussion got me to dust off my copy of FSW, and it reminded me of how good Pandemic is (Mercenaries, Star Wars Battlefront, ah memories), and now im reminded that they are owned by EA? Keyboard-smashingly frustrating!!! Their next game will be released six months early, with no bug testing, and DRM up the arse.

I have to admit, the early screens for that do look pretty sweet, quite nicely evoking that 'Commandos' series, but im confident EA will find some way to screw it up.

Why so much EA hate? Don't they usually have polished products?

Oh, the irony.

Ha, I guess not. I thought that Mirror's Edge and Dead Space were very polished, I don't own either of them, so what do I know.

Mirror's Edge wasn't bad, but then again, it wasn't made by EA EA, just Swedish outpost EA.

Hell's Highway starts you off with a "previously on Brothers in Arms" type of thing when you actually begin playing the game. So you get a quick flashback of all the plot stuff that was supposed to have happened in Road to Hill 30 and... the other one... (I forget the name.)
I've only played Road to Hill 30 (i.e. the other game that focuses on Baker as squad leader) and Hell's Highway and I found that to be enough to be able to understand the plot of Hell's HIghway. It might -help- to play the other one in the series, in order to get a better handle on the characters, but it's really not necessary.
That being said, I found that the story didn't -really- get good until Hell's Highway, anyway. Sure, you had the same characters and such in the other games, but it wasn't until the most recent game that they really started trying to actually tell a really good story with them. If you want to be a completionist, sure, go ahead and pick up the entire series, but I wouldn't say it's strictly necessary.
That, and I didn't particularly -like- Road to Hill 30, anyway. I liked the idea of a squad level tactical shooter, but like people are saying, it seemed like the idea of fix and flank was the only tactic ever used in infantry combat, the way Hill 30 seemed to work. Hell's Highway played a lot smoother, in my opinion both in terms of the players actually shooting enemies themselves, and ordering their squadmates to support an advance.

Earned In Blood
With the first one its almost like they tempted you to play it all call of duty by doing everything yourself and then punished you for it

Pretty much. You were pretty much combat ineffective, or at least it felt like it. Shots never seemed to hit because you had no crosshairs, which forced you to use your iron sights to line up pretty much every shot. But even when you did, there was so much sight drift, and even if you did have your shot properly aimed, the bullet didn't go where you aimed it.
It really seemed like the game developers were pushing you to make full use of the idea that you had a squad at your beck and call that they actually made you useless as an actual fighter. The ridiculously unforgiving health system, the terrible inaccuracy with all the weapons... I mean, yes, being able to tell my men to charge that hill is pretty fun, but at the same time, I want to be able to charge -with- them and drop a few bad guys myself. Having to hang back behind a brick wall while my boys do all the shooting because firing off an entire clip from my Garand just wastes eight rounds of ammunition isn't all that much fun.