User Score
6.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 37 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 22 out of 37
  2. Negative: 11 out of 37

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Oct 31, 2013
    0
    A recent posting on the official forums has caused a flood of high-value reviews to be deposited on Metacritic this week, throwing the overall rating out of whack. This rating is for not only on the original but also the two modules released to date, CW and MG. The title is a bit of a misnomer, as it covers the ETO campaign from June 6 to September 30 not just Normandy.

    I suppose this
    A recent posting on the official forums has caused a flood of high-value reviews to be deposited on Metacritic this week, throwing the overall rating out of whack. This rating is for not only on the original but also the two modules released to date, CW and MG. The title is a bit of a misnomer, as it covers the ETO campaign from June 6 to September 30 not just Normandy.

    I suppose this game is a bit of a misnomer no matter how you slice it as major bits of equipment are missing despite the game engine making its debut in 2007, and WWII coming back down the pipe 2 years ago. Flame weapons for example, multiple AA weapons in a ground role, engineering equipment, funnies. This may seem like trivia, but anyone using the mission builder and trying to recreate a historical battle from a text book or personal account will as often or not have to close the book in frustration when they come upon some type of equipment, procedure, terrain type, etc. that was present in the battle but isn't included in the game. Canuck units have strange mixes of Brit vehicles that historically they never used, and the MG module makes you purchase SS and Brit stuff twice. You can recreate a fraction of what happened in any given portion of the campaign, and the limited interface means you have a very generic way of doing it. TacOps, for example, at least gave a broad palette of SOPs for forces under command that broadened the interface and opened up the player's decision tree. Just about every palette here is very narrow forces mostly feel the same, terrain is limited to a handful of types, victory conditions are vague and unfulfilling (marketed as "realistic"). CM now has so many patches and versions some of which you have to pay for good luck figuring out which.

    The devs are all over the map with what they're trying to accomplish here. The original games had a clarity of purpose, with cleanly laid out interface, a complete order of battle, and logical unit actions that at least made up for the lack of SOPs, especially in the heavily abstracted environment. The move to a directly representational three-dimensional world resulted in a fragmented interface with many missing pieces. Too frustrating, and way too costly, buying module after module as the devs slowly claw their way back to a state of the art, using paying customers as alpha testers for their experiment. After 13 years, it's time to move on to at least beta.
    Expand
  2. Sep 13, 2011
    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 mightThough 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. Collapse
  3. May 28, 2012
    1
    A squad based WWII wargame with an interface from 2001. It's from a small developer and it shows, with a shoddy game engine, plenty of graphical glitches, poor audio, almost every aspect of the game needs to be optimized. I can't help but imagine what this game could have been in the hands of a large competent professional studio. Avoid.
  4. Sep 10, 2011
    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 flawsCMBN 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
  5. Dec 17, 2012
    1
    Played the demo feels like a kiddy click fest rts game. Canned and scripted AI nothing to write home about when on the offensive just like all of the Combat Mission series. No tcp/ip turn based play only rts click fest type. Still has PBEM turn based but a real let down that it doesn't have the origional tcp/ip turn based play. Nothing really new here except graphics...what else is newPlayed the demo feels like a kiddy click fest rts game. Canned and scripted AI nothing to write home about when on the offensive just like all of the Combat Mission series. No tcp/ip turn based play only rts click fest type. Still has PBEM turn based but a real let down that it doesn't have the origional tcp/ip turn based play. Nothing really new here except graphics...what else is new with repeat games though eh? Expand
  6. Dec 8, 2013
    2
    CM: BO was great. CM: BB was even greater. CM: AK was even a little bit better.

    CM: SF was a huge disappointment. CM: Battle for Normandy too is a huge disappointment. Good things: -Better graphics than the older games. I don't care about that though. The old ones were fine by me. Bad things: -Fewer units. And by that I mean almost no units at all. -Lacking units. Like no US
    CM: BO was great. CM: BB was even greater. CM: AK was even a little bit better.

    CM: SF was a huge disappointment.

    CM: Battle for Normandy too is a huge disappointment.

    Good things:
    -Better graphics than the older games. I don't care about that though. The old ones were fine by me.

    Bad things:
    -Fewer units. And by that I mean almost no units at all.
    -Lacking units. Like no US Rangers, no Waffen-SS, no German Paratroopers, no Brits, no Canadians, no amphibian units, etc. So "A Tiny US-centric Part of the Battle for Normandy" would be a better title.
    -Cover doesn't work logically. You seem to be even worse off when inside heavy buildings than when in open ground.
    -Soldiers die like flies. Everybody seems to be sharpshooters, and all shrapnel seems to hit somebody.
    -Mortars are incredibly effective as in "too effective".
    -The editor is horrible compared to the one in the three first CM games.
    -There is no A. I. All A. I. is scripted, and if you want to make a scenario yourself you have to script the A. I. yourself. That really, really sucks.

    If my crappy Windows 8,1 had worked for the old CM games I would have played them still. This game I uninstalled and will never play again. It was a complete waste of money. And yes: it was very expensive too...

    Don't buy this game. It is not good at all, and nothing like the old CM games.
    Expand
  7. Feb 26, 2014
    3
    It got this game after a friend recommended it to me, but I can't help but feel disappointed after playing it for a while. I thought this was going to be a super-realistic simulation, but as a student of military history, I've found many oddities. The main gripe I have is the casualty rates and the lethality of small-arms fire and light mortars. If you look at the actual data of theIt got this game after a friend recommended it to me, but I can't help but feel disappointed after playing it for a while. I thought this was going to be a super-realistic simulation, but as a student of military history, I've found many oddities. The main gripe I have is the casualty rates and the lethality of small-arms fire and light mortars. If you look at the actual data of the effectiveness of these weapons, you'll see that they were far less effective than what is modelled in Battle for Normandy. Artillery is also way too precise and overpowered compared to what it was historically. I also can't help but laugh a little when I see some of the tanks and half-tracks in Combat Mission taking half a minute just to turn 90 degrees, when you can easily find Youtube videos of these vehicles in action showing how agile they really were.

    Add to this the broken TCP/IP multiplayer and issues with graphics and DRM, I don't feel like giving this game a better score than a 3, despite some its better qualities.
    Expand
  8. Sep 13, 2011
    0
    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 mightThough 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. Collapse
Metascore
81

Generally favorable reviews - based on 4 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 4
  2. Negative: 0 out of 4
  1. Oct 19, 2011
    84
    Return of the premier tactical wargame series to World War II is marred a bit by clunky camera and some big UI issues (no grand unit list after ten years, really?). But the game beneath is solid steel, and the additions of new Combat Mission engine good. If only the game would cover more than three months of combat. [June 2011]
  2. Oct 12, 2011
    73
    CMBfN is a very good tactical wargame saddled with pre-alpha looks and controls. [Dec 2011, p.74]
  3. Aug 6, 2011
    80
    Too fiddly and unforgiving for the popular palate, but those after reality-rooted WWII challenges should clearly investigate. [Aug 2011, p.94]