What dismal writing: littered with typos and ugly prose. I haven't read Wargamer in years and now I remember why...
I first played CM:BO after reading about it in a column in PCGamer magazine (I believe it too was titled "the Wargamer" but I can't recall) and still remember finding the manual incomprehensible. I got lucky enough to play a game against Fionn but at fifteen didn't really have the patience for PBEM. (He rocked me, of course. I don't know where he went, I left the forums around 2006 and just bought CM:BN.) I played BB too. The Stalingrad maps were savage: I remember a Pavlov's house map in particular.
I guess this wind up is a way of saying: a franchise this respected by gamers
deserved a better review. The examination is cursory, the reviewer doesn't seem to appreciate properly the level of historical accuracy built into the mechanics; he also appears to ignore battlefront's trademark strength in ballistics modeling.
I also disagree about the AI. Even on Iron the AI has real problems with advancing, planning a competent defense (I.e., abandoning positions and reforming behind secondary lines, or redeploying in response to a flank attack) and it rarely surprises an involved player. Maybe I need to switch to mp, however.
Don't even get me started on this kid saying the Normandy setting is overplayed...