1. norway1980

   5

   CMBN appears at first glance to be every wargamer's wet dream, however, after logging a few hours with the game it becomes clear that something is not right. BF claims 'the most realistic bla bla bla ever', but the pace and lack of focus on cover and realistic infantry tactics moves Combat Mission several notches towards real-time strategy and away from the realism-oriented combat sim it was once hailed to be. Infantry die very easily, and using buildings and the likes for cover seems to do more harm than good. The focus is on killing enemy units rather than tactics and maneuver. Light mortars, arguably one of the most ineffective weapons in earlier incarnations of CM, is now the most lethal weapon in your arsenal - a change which indicates that CMBN's historical accuracy is a chance outcome of game mechanics rather than a carefully thought out design decision. It seems as if Battlefront's idea of 'realistic' has become as much simulation of detail as possible, and because of that CMBN has an incredible amount of detail you won't find in any other real-time strategy game. Every bullet and its trajectory is modelled and so is the speed of sound, for instance. How do such features make CMBN a more realistic wargame? They don't. They do, apparently, sell games, and like any mass-market company, Battlefront now seem to be making their games based on a vague aggregate of what the typical customer, which will always be a casual gamer, finds appealing rather than an idea of what a good tactical wargame should be like. While still making games for a niche market, the essence of mass-marketism seems to have overcome Battlefront - a very disappointing observation given their outspoken philosophy against this very same mass-marketism. So is CMBN a bad game? Not at all, but from a CM-fan's point of view it is a step in the wrong direction. And given the reception the first Combat Mission-games got from mass-market reviewers(still being hailed as one of the ten best games of all times) despite its limited graphics and abstracted gameplay, the casual CM-gamer should be disappointed too.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     2 of 2 users said yes
2. Shaddock

   3

   CMBN although initially looking like a good game and worthy successor to others Combat Mission games from the past upon further inspection begins to develop some serious flaws. Too often the battles seem to take place between roaming question marks and not actual units due to the way the lines of sight versus cover and concealment work. Furthermore the multiplayer has some serious flaws drawn from the game being overly ambitious for its engine. The game often stutters and freezes when attempting to play in real time, often leading to long setup and preparation times for the game resulting in only moments of actual game play. Once the shooting starts the engine cant track all the action and inevitably freezes. If you are looking to play a good wargame with a friend, I suggest you look somewhere else.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     1 of 1 users said yes
3. Valdez

   3

   Though the game is a nice upgrade over the old version of this game, the game still lacked a playability of friends that would make this game really good. The small battles done with my friend always seemed to go one way, really quick, and half the time felt like little of the enemy was seen but a lot killed. Now giving you a total feel of the battle at hand. Larger battles that might give this much needed feeling, are impossibly to play, as was hinted by the smaller battles with occasional pauses to let the data pass through, but with the bigger ones, larger play with a friend is nearly if not impossible. With such problems as these, I'd think this game falls short of what it could and should be.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     1 of 1 users said yes

See all 4 User Reviews