After joining a server, and assuming the current match has ended, you will choose to join either the Allies or the Axis force. From there, your squad leader will issue commands to their entire unit. You're free to follow orders or disobey and run around until you're dead. The gameplay itself is very tactical and really forces the squad leaders and all other players to think since they are working against actual living people and not just an AI. Divided We Fall definitely has me raising an eyebrow in a new found interest in the RTS genre, although I can't speak for everyone in that regard.
Perhaps it was the timing of my playtime, but almost every server I joined had the actual developers playing alongside us. Not to moderate and dictate how we play, but to play with us and make sure we were enjoying ourselves. They would even add to jokes and take the time to ask what we personally want to see added in the future. We were also told when updates are planned to appear and what would be included.
I'm not completely sold on it being multiplayer only though. AI squads would probably be just as good, if not better, than random people on the internet that can, and will, gladly disobey orders and end the match in a loss. The servers themselves are a bit laggy, but the developers have stated that these problems will be the first that will be remedied in the next patches. Still, I can't help but feel that multiplayer should have been a secondary gameplay choice rather than the main attraction.
As it stands, Divided We Fall is pretty basic in terms of RTS games, but some of the additions planned to be added are: better balancing, more maps, more nations to choose from, more weapons, and Steam Workshop integration. The words "Early Access" typically turn away many potential players due to the sheer volume of controversy that has followed in the past, but we shouldn't completely disregard a game for that reason. Especially since the developers do seem genuine in their plight.