User Reviews (1 - 11 of 35)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Probably Good If It Works

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 4
Date: July 04, 2003
Author: Amazon User

This would proably be a very good game, like the others in the series, if you can get it to run! I have tried it on two Windows 98 machines and my new XP PC. It will not run on any of them. Buyer beware...the online help is also useless.

Try out CC-3 the Russian Front

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: February 05, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I thought this game was kind of fun to play. Yet, it deserved a 2 star rating because it is actually worse than its predicessor close combat 3, the russian front. This is unforgivable as the gaming industry is probably one of the most competitive of all software industries. When I was playing this game I kept thinking about "why don't I just uninstall this game and go back to play 'the russian front' instead" The two sides are more evenly matched in the russian front. The role of the tanks and infantry are more realistically modelled in the russian front. (Sure it's no fun when you have 20 men chopped to pieces by a single tank when deployed improperly, but that's what happens even if your infantry got a couple of AT-rifles or Panzerfausts). You could actually tell what's going on in CC3. With battle of the bulge, most of the times you just send in your troops and hope for the best. Many of my favorite features in CC3, like requisition your own units is unavailable in this game. And the heavier German tanks rumored to be available to you in this game is actually not, well I haven't seen one King Tiger or Ferdinand yet.

CC3 is better...this is...aggravating

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 4 / 7
Date: September 09, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I found this game more aggravating than enjoyable, and was constantly reloading maps to try and place my units in a more strategic area...which I wasn't very successful at. When my units did have LOS enough to "fire" they spent most of the time yelling about "no clear shot". Meanwhile, the Americans can do little to nothing to stop the German tanks, while in reality a well placed round from a Sherman, AT gun or even a bazooka could at least immobilize a german tank. The computer controlled german tanks have 100% comprehension of the terrain and even the layout of units they shouldn't be able to see, firing all the way across the map. The computer controlled mortar crews can knock out every half track and armored car you own, while in reality they shouldn't even be able to see them yet, while your mortar crews are useless most of the time. The player controlled units are slow, their turrets are usually traversing the wrong direction and they are always "aiming" and rarely firing. A target can come around the corner, its turret already rotating and knock out a sherman before you can even make its turret line up to fire. Very, very annoying when American armor is in such short supply...but it lacks punch anyway. Watching the historical accounts of tank battles, 5 shermans in real life could knock out even a tiger...in this game they can only draw fire to themselves while not doing a bit of damage to the enemy...can't I at least immobilize a panzer once in a while...throw me a bone here. However the infantry units are great, fighting a hopeless battle until the panzers show up to blow 'em to hell.

I found CC3 to be more forgiving to sunday gamers, with the russian T34's and tank destroyers being an even match for panzers. I would love to see an AT rifle score at least one hit on a tank though...some day maybe.

Awful

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 0 / 5
Date: August 03, 2001
Author: Amazon User

This game was simply awful compared with CC I through III. I had a blast with CC III but I would not recommend this one at all.

Awesome simulation, but it lacks the depth that CC2 had.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 4
Date: May 02, 2000
Author: Amazon User

This game has it all plus more compared to all the other but Close Combat II. The combat system in CC4 is beyond all the others, especially the intelligence of infantry tank killers. The addition of artillary and air strikes is nice, but it is more of an optional plus than a real helper during gamepley. Tanks could still use more brains, and for some reason individuality was so cool in CCI and CC2 is almost gone completely. I remember the days when I would try not only to win, but also get one of my guys a CMOH or silver star. But thats almost impossible now. Another thing is that snipers were so effective in CC2, but worthless in CC4 unless used in an open area, whereupon they get blasted after hitting their first target. Otherwise, small complaints aside, I cannot stop playing CC4. That should say enough.

Not enough battle groups.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 4 / 4
Date: February 14, 2002
Author: Amazon User

Close Combat Battle of the Bulge is a good game compared to Close Combat 1,2 or 3 but it still needs improvements like more battle groups in the battle maker. Although there are a lot of maps to fight on they get to all look the same after while with all that snow. There are just not enough types of infantry or tank units to keep your attention for very long. But I suppose I might be asking too much from a $20 game. I say if you're looking for a small-scale strategy game, go with Close Combat 5.

Historical accuracy in question from reviews

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 5 / 16
Date: July 21, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I haven't played this game, but I am something of an expert on the
Ardennes Offensive (Watch on the Rhine/Autumn Mist) and judging by the comments of other reviewers, the game has the Germans with lots of Tiger tanks (they didn't say which version). Regardless of version, none of the three German armies that were involved
possessed much in the way of Tiger tanks. Peiper's Kampgrup had
about three dozen, almost all of which broke down. Overall, the
attacking Germans were estimated to have less that 300. Nor did
lack of gasoline have a great deal to do with the halting of the German attacks - Peiper, for example, was waylaid and slowed down and eventually stopped by all those bridges the US engineers
blew up in his face, and US Armor and artillery. The Germans had
plenty of gasoline accumulated for the operation - over a million units - but trying to get it to frontline units was practically impossible - small road network and traffic jams (the Germans had
too much horse drawn equipment for mobile warfare). The old and
historically nonsensical Battle of the Bulge motion picture had
promulgated a lot of innaccurate beliefs about the battle.

Is defense really necessary?

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 4 / 5
Date: April 30, 2006
Author: Amazon User

This game was sooo aggravating. It's one of the most poorly designed WWII games I have ever played. During the real war, most casualties were caused by artillery. However in this game your artillery is little more than a fireworks show for the enemy. Your tanks and AT guns spend more time spinning around while the Germans always hit you right on the mark. What happened to the overwhelming superiority that the Allies had during the later stages of the battle? In this game, the Allies rarely get even a 2 to 1 advantage in tanks. Even when you do get an advantage, your tanks get picked off with ease while your crewmen spend their time rotating the turrets. What's the point of the "ambush"? You can start a battle with your AT guns poised , aimed, ready to go and on the defensive. However, the Germans still manage to get off a first shot and knock out your gun even though they are attacking. What a load of crap! What's the deal with the German Rocket artillery? They never miss and always seem to know where your main guns are no matter where you put them. Make sure you put a time limit on each battle. Otherwise you may be in for a battle that never ends. For some reason, the Germans will simply stop attacking and do nothing. I thought the Battle of the Bulge was supposed to be about a major German OFFENSIVE in 1944. Sometimes they will just sit back and wait for you to come to them. This is when they are supposed to be that attackers!! What a waste of a game.

Lacking the Tiger's bite

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 5 / 6
Date: September 13, 2000
Author: Amazon User

As an avid fan of first two CCs, I initially warmed to "Battle of the Bulge". What better subject matter? The great battle pitting Germany's feared Tiger tank against the flimsy US Shermans, first immortalised in the Hollywood movie of the same name, and now brought to life by the best wargame producers around.

True to the faith, CC4 has wonderful sound effects and battlefield concepts -- for instance, unexploded shells in burning tanks periodically blow up, keeping you on the edge of your seat, particularly if they go up while your men are creeping around nearby.

The addition of rocket half-tracks, though perhaps not entirely historically accurate, adds a great wildcard. No matter how strong your force, the odds can be changed in an instant by a few well-placed missiles from the enemy. Also great is the ability to bombard the enemy or call in a Mustang to drop something down the chimney of the Panzer leader.

The switch to a strategic map of the entire battlefield is also great fun. Now you can feel that you're driving the whole campaign, not just directing a few ants at a time. The option to choose time limits on individual battles is also good as is the addition of a "sneak" movement for individual squads.

But after a few plays, I found my enjoyment fading into frustration.

Campaigns run for far too long. Unless, you are hospitalised and have nothing else to do all day, getting through a grand campaign will take weeks and cost you most of the significant relationships in your life.

Monotony. The length of the campaigns might not be so bad except that each mission somehow starts to seem very similar to the last after a few battles. It may be the ubiquitous snowy terrain and the lack of variation in the weapons.

Line of fire. This is sometimes difficult to distinguish -- you'll be sitting in what you think is a gully when next thing you know you're actually in clear sight of a Panzer. This is an unrealistic and occasionally annoying factor as line of fire certainly would have been clear to those on the ground.

No Battlemaker!! While you can create your own strategic map operations, you don't have the wonderful battlemaker of CC2. You have to try to find the battlegroups that are carrying your favourite weapons and then position them on the map. It takes time, trial and error, and doesn't always work.

You are are supreme ... too supreme. The computer is generally too weak an opponent whether on the defence or the attack. While that is better than it being too strong, it does become boring.

Bugs!! On the two computers I played, the game was fatally flawed with bugs. "Internal errors" would occasionally appear in the middle of the most gripping games, or the most important junctures in campaigns.

And, last but not least; No Tigers!! The movie version of the battle was famous for the Tiger tank. The CC4 manual also refers to these monsters. However, they never appear, except as tank destroyers. That is a major disappointment.

disappointed

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 6 / 8
Date: April 01, 2000
Author: Amazon User

As a Close Combat fan, especially CC3, I was excited to get a copy of CC4-Battle of the Bulge. As others have said, it is nowhere near the level of CC3. You cannot select individual units, the AI is seriously flawed, and the same maps get used over and over-even if you "hold" an area after one battle...the computer will take it away from you the next time. Also, I have yet to see a Tiger or King Tiger tank. Why does the book even mention them? The game requires incredible patience as well; to complete the campaign takes days. I hardly ever play it anymore, and have reverted to CC3 for my wargaming.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 Next 

Actions