CMBB reviewed in Military History Magazine

[Yaphank]

The June 2004 issue of Military History Magazine has a little review in the back.

"....it remains one of the finest single player and multiplayer historical games on the PC."

Kudos to Battlefront!

[Bergerbitz]

Hurrah!

CMBB still ranks as one of my favourites, even after a year and a half. Other games have come and gone, but CMBB stays.

Good stuff, BFC! If the game gets a review in Time or Newsweek, then you know you've hit the mainstream.

[MikeyD]

I ask you, how could a mil history mag NOT praise CMBB? This game simply drips history! I can see (and have seen) dumb-ass shooter game types turning their noses up at the game – not enough twitching, too much thinking – but people interested in history have got absolutely nothing to complain about with this game.

...except when I try to use more than eight Sturmtigers at a time in a scenario

[Abn Air Cav]

Good stuff, for sure!

[WindyCity]

Best Turn Base wargame I have ever played ,hands down.

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I ask you, how could a mil history mag NOT praise CMBB? This game simply drips history! I can see (and have seen) dumb-ass shooter game types turning their noses up at the game – not enough twitching, too much thinking – but people interested in history have got absolutely nothing to complain about with this game.

...except when I try to use more than eight Sturmtigers at a time in a scenario

Ditto.

Still playing it after all this time. In fact CMBB and CMAK are the only games on my $2000+ rig. Set it up just to play these games without any hassles.

Really is an incredible game.

[Cannon-fodder]

Well, I play other games too... I've always enjoyed a quick fragfest on UT2004 or CounterStrike. There are good games out there apart from CMBB, I just find that it's one of those rare things I can return to indefinately.

[Macphail]

i played close combat for alot of years, especially cc3, on the zone. i was very highly ranked at one time, but it was not that large a community. i was Der_Fuhrer. one day, the management at msn banned me, said something about an offensive name. bastards.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Bergerbitz:

Good stuff, BFC! If the game gets a review in Time or Newsweek, then you know you've hit the mainstream.

CMBO was reviewed in the NY Times in October 2000. W00T!

[David I]

I think CM should get the Noble Prize for best wargame!

DavidI

[mrpwase]

I'm not sure such a prize exists (to which the obvious answer is, why not? ), but it's still one of the better wargames, if not the best. At least you can't take a Tiger out with a 'faust shot to the tracks...stupid Call of Duty!

[-E]

Yes, the Nobel PEACE prize is often awarded bicentennally for the best computer WARgame.

[Leopard_2]

Ahhh... Close Combat, now *there's* another good game. As a CMBB rookie, I credit my early successes against the AI on the experience gained in Close Combat: Invasion Normandy... (like, *don't* let your tanks charge ahead, cover your advance, don't overextend).

BTW... what's a Waffenschleppenvashen? :cool:

[murphus]

I would like to ask those who have tried other games what they think, particularly with regard to:

Codename: Panzers

D-Day

Battleground 1942 (??? - maybe Battlefront...)

and others. Personally, I like the opportunity to plan my moves and not be continually stabbing at the mouse like a demented experimental subject in a stress study. Close Combat was too fast for me. I think games should reflect the fact that human intelligence (i.e., the player's) is substituting for the lack of AI intelligence. What I mean is that if I plan a platoon's movement in detail in CM, I am substituting for the platoon commander by giving those orders in detail. If I could trust the AI to do the right thing, I would simply say "go there". Real-time type games don't let the individual units do more than act as rather stupid puppets. Any thoughts?