User Reviews (1 - 11 of 36)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Ironically, the name shows where the game fails most.

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 16 / 31
Date: January 03, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I loved the series when it debuted - primitive, yeah, but fun nonetheless. CC2 moved the series a step in the right direction - music to the ears of fans of the genre. Fast forward to Invasion Normandy, and it's honestly hard to see what's worth playing anymore.

Gameplay: terrible. For a series which prides itself heavily on AI, this game has little, if none. Units will often hold their fire, even if an inferior enemy unit is cleary charging right at them. Line-of-sight problems plague the entire game, with areas of identical elevation and free of obstacles sometimes being impossible to fire at - it's sometimes even impossible to fire at an elevated position, which is otherwise visible.

Another thing - unit worth and accuracy. Units such as snipers, mortar teams, etc. are basically useless. You would think a sniper could easily pick off a stationary target, not hidden behind cover, at a distance of 50 metres - not so. Mortars seem to land in random locations, and, even if it graphically appears as though it would have taken out a whole squad, they're left miraculously unharmed. There are many instances where I will have an enemy scout unit surrounded by an entire platoon, and, although the maximum distance will be 30 metres, the enemy will be on an area of no cover (i.e. middle of the road), the nearly one hundred bullets per second raining down on them will fail to hit - and this pathetic little squad will STILL manage to take out enemies while under massive suppression. Not only that, but AT squads are nearly useless as well, since they have a tendency to miss 99% of the time, and the 1% where the round would hit, it will instead land on the other side of the tank - which is physically impossible, since in reality, rockets go in straight lines, and this isn't duplicated properly. The tedious 20-metre engagements between whole platoons for 10 minutes is so ridiculous, I feel like I'm fighting on a battlefield full of Gomer Pyles.

Still, passing the game is incredibly simple, ... and, somehow, inferior German forces. I found it hilarious in the invasion scenarios that there wasn't even any gunfire raining down on the beach, and that the Atlantic Wall could easily be climbed by the average person - STRAIGHT OUT CLIMBED.

I'm getting pissed off at this game just thinking about it. The last thing I need is to play a game where everyone's aim is about as good as an extra in a Schwartzenegger movie...

HORRIBLE GAME

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 1 / 5
Date: January 24, 2001
Author: Amazon User

Let me first tell you that I liked the close combat series. I use that past tense, in that Close Combat was great back in 1997.

Back then - it was the only semi-realistic, real time strategy game that didn't dumb itself down to the command and conquer style click fest.

Atomic had the chance to improve this series, but essentially did nothing. Bugs that plagued Close Combat back then, still plague it today ( tank movement, crawl of death ). What we have is essentially an unchanged game with new maps.

On the internet, Atomic exhibited a very cocky take-it-or-leave it attitude when costumers made comments or suggestions. This is one of the reasons why the series has been going downhill ever since, and why Atomic finally went out of business.

The main glaring defect of the series is computer AI. It is laughable, and once you detect the computers pattern - you can beat it every time. The AI code has remained unchanged since 1997 - and it shows. Head to head play is the only solution if you want a skilled opponent.

The maps, always a good point still are great to look at. But not much has changed with them either. They are no more functional now than they were then.

The strategic element, since it's introduction in Close Combat IV is severly limited. It really adds nothing for the game. For example, you can't have multiple units attack at once, even though you surround the enemy. This isn't how war is really played.

If you never played close combat before, give this 4 stars. You will like it, and recognize the faults. After that, it's all down hill.

For a truly revolutionary game, try Combat Mission. It's 3D, 10x more realistic, simple interface, and the designers listen and respond to feedback. Best of all, the game is highly modifiable, and support sites are chock full of new and updated graphics. Check it out at battlefront.com

This is the future - close combat - RIP.

Careful!

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 0 / 12
Date: September 09, 2001
Author: Amazon User

Close Combat 4 was a huge disappointment! Careful with this one!

Good head to head, crappy single player

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 3 / 4
Date: December 01, 2001
Author: Amazon User

After paying two online Grand Campaigns with two very worthy opponents, I have come to respect this game for what it is - a fun H2H game, but it is not much more.

The graphics out of the box are cartoon cutouts that look like they belong on a kids television show. Tank and AT guns simply look like they were copy and pasted from a comic book, which is horribly ugly to look at when you have the gorgeous maps you play on. Fortunatly, this can be solved with graphics mods for the game that greatly help and make the vehicles and guns look as they should, realistic.

As for gameplay, it is safe to say that any experienced player will have no challenge at all on single player. The AI is atrocious, and no mod can help this. The only wayto get any enoyment whatsoever out of this game is to find a good, reliable opponent online, and play the grand campaign, that is where this game is fun.

WWII grogs like myself will love this game, however, being a serious gamer the bugs detract from the simple play this gives. Since Atomic went out of business, the CC community now has to rely on third party patches and fixes to an extremely buggy game out of the box. If the CC series had actually evolved from its first installment, to now its fifth, then Atomic games might actually still be in business. This is a cheap knock-off of CC4, which was the absolute worst in the series, but can be fun when you find a very good opponent to play who is honest. Why?

Reenforcement bug in GC - unlimited reinforcements for American player... In my first GC, I had to go up about three times the American armor is should have, which ruined the game. Fix this by keeping a paper chart with your opponent so as not to ruin the game, because there wont be any patch for this.

Where is the rest ?

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 5
Date: December 28, 2000
Author: Amazon User

As an avid player of the CC games I looked forward to CC5 very much. I enjoy the graphics and scenario system as well as the playing system.

However, I was very disappointed by the fact that the game is limited to the American front in Normandy only. Some of the most interesting fighting, with some of the most interesting units on both sides took place in and around Caen.

Not included.

The British and Canadian attacks on the 1st SS Panzer Corps would have made some great battles to play.

I can only hope that a "CC6" for the Normandy campaign that will cover these aras of the great battle.

Great fun, but too easy

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 8 / 8
Date: February 07, 2001
Author: Amazon User

Close Combat: Invasion Normandy is overall an excellent game. If you are like me, sick of real-time strategy games that focus on how fast you can build troops and tanks to swarm the enemy, than CCV is for you. Most other games in the genre focus on who can build technology faster and kill the other teams ore trucks with greater effectiveness. Not CCV. This game focuses on tactics and realism. Your soldiers react realistically to situations. If a soldier sees his squad wiped out by a flamethrower, he'll likely break down and be useless. This adds alot of depth to the game and pushes it head and shoulders above the rest. The maps look superb and they are affected by mortar barrages etc. The intro music is pretty poor. It doesn't give the game the right feel, but this is minor. The real problem with the game is that it is too easy. The AI is just really poor sometimes. I've seen 3 whole squads crawl down a road and be mowed down by machine gun fire, and then the AI will send another squad down the same road to meet the same fate. This makes the game far too easy. likewise, the AI doesn't use tanks effectively at all. A tank can be the best weapon of all, but it can also be scrap metal. The computer AI prefers scrap metal. The expolsions look great, as do the animations. All in all, 4 stars. Great fun, and graphics, really poor AI.

Not For Action, But For Strategy

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 8 / 8
Date: October 12, 2003
Author: Amazon User

This is a game that you will probably find yourself playing many, many times, depending on whether or not your intentions for purchasing the game are for action or strategy.
Historically, I felt it did a great job of duplicating the scenarios of the real invasion of Normandy. Hedgerows were a major nuisance for the Allied forces and it was that way in Close Combat 5, as well. It makes it hard to put the tanks into some sort of effective use, without the help of supporting infantry. Sometimes the amount of troops allowed to fight in a battle were actually too large to be historically accurate, when considering the scattered drops of the U.S. airborne, and that made offensive moves in this game too easy, but it really didn't take away much from the game. In all honesty, it wouldn't have been much fun to lead an attack with only a group of men the size of a few squads.
Strangely enough, an entire division is lost if it's involved force, in a battle, loses every man. Although not the entire division participates in the battle, the entire division will no longer exist, as if the rest of it is disbanded.
Overall, the game was much fun for me. I was interested in learning more about Operation Overlord, and the involvement of the U.S. in World War 2, and found this game to be very helpful, although I could still tell which historical aspects were true, and which were inaccuracies due to the game itself.
I read a review that described that, in the beach landings, there weren't enough bullets whizzing in the air and that it basically seemed too tame. But this game focuses on Utah Beach, not Omaha. Utah WAS much tamer, and had much fewer casualties, so don't expect a slaughter. Besides that, the "Atlantic Wall" that the reviewer talked about being climbed was not the Atlantic Wall, but a simple sea wall. This game is much more realistic than you may have been led to believe. And, yes, sometimes the aim of the soldiers was horrible and humorous at the same time, but the cons are outweighed by the pros. Strategy is definitely the way to go in this game. Don't expect to win battles by charging the enemy head on.

Close Combat: Invasion of Normandy

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 2 / 12
Date: October 06, 2000
Author: Amazon User

This is not the best but is one of the best games i've played its got good graphics and sound. Its reailistic but still has that unrealistic value we all like in games.

I love this older strategy game

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: January 11, 2007
Author: Amazon User

I had this game in 2001, but lost the media to it. Recently, I began a new search for the software developers to see if they have continued the line of WWII strategy based games. I also, played Battle of the Bulge but was upset with the game play. I found Invasion Normandy interesting and very captive. Although, comparing the game with current graphics it doesn't hold any water to any new stuff. But because this game was a favorite of mine I have re-purchased the game with the hopes if continuing my love for WWII strategy based games. If you love older 16-bit graphics, but yet interesting game play I highly recommend Close Combat: Invasion Normandy.

best of series but lacks innovation

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 1 / 1
Date: January 30, 2001
Author: Amazon User

i purchase cc4 about 6 months ago and was terribly disappointed witht the product. the new strategic layout of the game was overly simplistic and hampered gameplay. notably you could not modify the groups you were attacking with nor could you attack with more then one group at the same time. cc5 has partially rectified this situation. you can now modify groups however you can still only attack with one group at a time. thus large scale flanking and pincer manuevers are not possible. i believe if they were to incorporate such a feature, along with an option to bring in reinforcement units during a battle, that such a wargame based on the cc model could be the best of all time. as for the game at hand it is definately the best of the series. the terrain maps are varied with new features, such as scalable walls, which make the game much more enjoyable. the ai also seems to be stepped up a bit, however, even when the enemy is put on the elite level, a decent tactician can still take the computer apart. but one cannot expect the ai to be overly challenging in a game with so many possible variables. again a great enhancement to the game would be real time reinforcements during the battle. such an option for the computer would mask certain ai faults by allowing the system to bring in overwhelming force. defending against such onslaughts would be a tactitians dream within the interface of the cc game system. to sum it up if you are a cc fan this game is not to be missed. the stratigic aspect of gameplay is not what it could be however it is on its way. in my opinion the cc interface of gameplay is one of, if not the most, innovative of all time. if they could just take the next step they could create a game like no other. if you happen to know any of the designers on this series pass this on to them.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 Next 

Actions