This is somewhat true for trench warfare, but all wars began with some strategy in mind, on either side, but that strategy isn't guaranteed to be successful in any way, let alone for the better. But strategy has always been part of every war. I'm not a game designer or the history know-it-all, but I do feel it could be implemented, if done correctly. I'm sure people didn't know how to make a successful World War 2 game for quite some time. It would only take one or two good and notable WW1 games to start a trend.

I did find some interesting reads on WW1 though: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWtactics.htm

This is Wikipedia's explanation of Technology during World War 1:

Technology during World War I reflected a trend toward industrialism and the application of mass production methods to weapons and to the technology of warfare in general. This trend began fifty years prior to World War I during the U.S. Civil War, and continued through many smaller conflicts in which new weapons were tested.

August 1914 marked the end of a relatively peaceful century in Europe with unprecedented invention and new science. The 19th-century vision of a peaceful future fed by ever-increasing prosperity through technology was largely shattered by the war's end; after the technological escalation during World War II, it was apparent that whatever the gains in prosperity and comfort due to technology applied to civilian use would always be under the shadow of the horrors of technology applied to warfare.

The earlier years of the First World War can be characterized as a clash of 20th-century technology with 19th-century warfare in the form of ineffective battles with huge numbers of casualties on both sides. It was not until the final year of the war that the major armies made effective steps in revolutionizing matters of command and control and tactics to adapt to the modern battlefield, and started to harness the myriad new technologies to effective military purposes. Tactical reorganizations (such as shifting the focus of command from the 100+ man company to the 10+ man squad) went hand-in-hand with armored cars, the first submachine guns, and automatic rifles that could be carried and used by one man.

_____________________________________________

So the main reason world war 1 was a mess is because it was such a bridge between wars of the old world, and the new world. No one knew how to fight. Bullets were flying as fast as bodies were piling up. It was also the first true war to use airplanes, poison gas, and mass produced artillery, not to mention flame throwers, poison gas, and even the beginning of tank and naval warfare.

I think that's a good formula for a great strategy game, and when it comes down to it, most strategy games use historic settings, names, and tech to put the game in the right context, but the strategy is always up to the player.

But after mentioning all that, I'd just like to see more wars covered in games, not just a select few. Next to World War 2, it would probably be the middle-east that's been covered the most in games (mostly shooters), with I think Vietnam coming in third.

Every war is pointless and seems to not have much face value, but in historic context, every war has significance and could easily become a stellar game, in any genre, with shooters probably being the easiest to do.

I have to mention though that I haven't really seen World War 1 on film, aside from a really old black and white movie I forget the name of that I saw as a kid, and Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which blew me away when I was young. The ferocity of the war made me afraid of war and I thought it was portrayed quite well in the show, for an early 90's TV mini-series at least.