User Score
5.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 46 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 22 out of 46
  2. Negative: 19 out of 46

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 7, 2013
    6
    I played the first Combat Mission games up till 'Barbarossa to Berlin', and I was very impressed at that time by the attention to detail and the effort that went into making the game as realistic as possible. It was truly revolutionary. I still buy Combat Mission games and modules, despite the VERY stiff price. However, what strikes me after playing this series for so long is that thereI played the first Combat Mission games up till 'Barbarossa to Berlin', and I was very impressed at that time by the attention to detail and the effort that went into making the game as realistic as possible. It was truly revolutionary. I still buy Combat Mission games and modules, despite the VERY stiff price. However, what strikes me after playing this series for so long is that there hasn't really been any real progress in terms of the game's(or simulation's) ability to produce realistic results that are comparable to real life scenarios. The FIDELITY of Combat Mission is unprecedented, but there is more to war than ballistics. Take the casualty rates, for example. They are still hilariously out of range. There are probably good design related reasons for that, but again: where is the next wargaming revolution?

    Sorry, Battlefront, you kept me entertained for 13 years, but now it is time for something new.
    Expand
  2. Oct 2, 2012
    7
    CMBN is a fantastic wargame - it is a serious wargamer's wet dream.

    However, the negative reviews aren't suprising, because there are things for the casual wargamer to dislike. It is tough to win. Well - toughen up princesses, war _is_ tough to win. This isn't a pretty packaged feel good game. It's the real thing: tough. It takes actual experience on the game to start
    CMBN is a fantastic wargame - it is a serious wargamer's wet dream.

    However, the negative reviews aren't suprising, because there are things for the casual wargamer to dislike. It is tough to win. Well - toughen up princesses, war _is_ tough to win. This isn't a pretty packaged feel good game. It's the real thing: tough. It takes actual experience on the game to start winning it. Complaints like "men die too easily" or "its a battle of question marks" are a sure sign of a casual gamer experience - someone who expected it to be easy. Actually, real men do die easily, and scouting is tough. But if you play it right, you keep your men alive and scout properly, turning the oppo's ? into proper sightings, and leaving him with a sea of confusion: realistic.

    It's also definitely the case that the initial incarnation of CMBN had some bad bad flaws. The most notable was that cover in buildings was broken (a fact noted in another review). However, this has been fixed and now it plays "just fine". If you're looking to spend 50 bucks and have a quick nice time, it's not for you. If you're looking to spend 50 bucks and have a game you can spend years playing, learning how to master, and getting fun out of, it is.

    GaJ
    Expand
  3. Jul 23, 2011
    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 itCMBN 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
  4. Aug 19, 2011
    5
    Not sure what BFC was trying to accomplish - actually, I do know; an appeal to a wider market base than had been possible with the first generation game engine that had made the first series of games so popular, playable and engaging. Unfortunately, much of the appeal had been stripped out for the first title of the second generation game engine, CM:SF, including the World War II setting.Not sure what BFC was trying to accomplish - actually, I do know; an appeal to a wider market base than had been possible with the first generation game engine that had made the first series of games so popular, playable and engaging. Unfortunately, much of the appeal had been stripped out for the first title of the second generation game engine, CM:SF, including the World War II setting. The Normandy title takes the series backs to its roots though curiously, despite being called "Battle for Normandy", only about 20% of the what went on in Normandy is included in the box - there are no amphibious forces, no parachute or glider invasions, no SS, the British are absent, as are the Luftwaffe and German paras, and so too are key pieces of American equipment, and elements of basic field engineering remain absent or awkwardly modelled. What you are left with are match-ups of vanilla German Army vs. U.S. in the bocage and the breakout between June, post-landing, and the breakout period (U.S. paratroopers are in, Rangers are not, neither are the captured French armour the Germans famously used on the Cotentin peninsula). The bocage is strangely modelled, too, with 30 ton tanks balking at driving over two-foot hedgerows, and the pathing problems of CM:SF seeming to rear heads, as Shermans scurry for flanks, trying to find hedge gates and exposing flanks in the process.

    Debates endure on various forums about the power of MGs, cover, memory leaks - just why DO those MG42s fire from 50 round drums instead of belts anyway?

    There is a definite following for the game. Some people just like watching Sherman tanks shoot at StuGs. CMBN makes pretty movies. Try the demo and see if this is for you. BFC has polished up their marketing approach and their graphics. I can't say that the game itself has been made any better - and judging by all the features that they are now furiously trying to weld back into the game engine, after having proudly stripped them out, i'm not sure even they disagree.
    Expand
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. Pelit (Finland)
    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. PC Gamer
    Oct 12, 2011
    73
    CMBfN is a very good tactical wargame saddled with pre-alpha looks and controls. [Dec 2011, p.74]
  3. PC Gamer UK
    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]