Close Combat - Panthers in the Fog

73%
Game Brain Score Based on 92 reviews
  • graphics
  • gameplay
  • stability
Close Combat - Panthers in the Fog Game Cover
Starting at $2.98Buy now
Get on Steam

"Close Combat: Panthers in the Fog is a tactical WW2 simulation set during the Battle of Mortain. Command American or German forces in linked battles or the grand campaign, with 35 battlefields and historically accurate units. New features include long-range interdiction, strategic high ground, and adverse weather conditions."

Play Modes

Reviews

73%
Audience ScoreBased on 92 reviews
graphics5 positive mentions
stability2 negative mentions
  • Fans of the Close Combat series will appreciate the classic gameplay and tactical depth, making it enjoyable for those familiar with the franchise.
  • The game features improved graphics and sound effects compared to previous titles, enhancing the overall experience.
  • Multiplayer mode offers a great time, especially when playing with friends, despite some issues with netcode.
  • The AI is often criticized for being too passive and unchallenging, making single-player mode less enjoyable.
  • Gameplay can feel slow and tedious, with large maps and a lack of speed controls leading to long periods of inaction.
  • Many players feel the game does not justify its price, citing outdated mechanics and a lack of significant improvements over older titles.
  • graphics16 mentions

    The graphics in the game receive mixed reviews, with some players appreciating the attractive visuals and hand-drawn maps, while others criticize them as outdated and lacking significant improvement since earlier titles. Although there are some enhancements in explosion and smoke effects, many users feel the overall presentation is poor, with a clunky UI and limited graphical options. Overall, the game is seen as visually appealing by some, but many agree it falls short of modern standards.

    • “Lovely looking maps and graphics for a CC game, nice sounds, and good UI make it the most modern CC game to play if you want hand-drawn maps as opposed to the most recent 3D ones (which I personally don't like).”
    • “Nice graphics, interesting roster of units with a high level of historical correctness, gameplay map is significantly larger than previous CC series.”
    • “Panthers in the Fog feels like the better installments of the game, yet is upgraded, with more realistic reinforcement pools and better graphics.”
    • “I gave it a pass on how the graphics are old and the sound is pretty ho-hum, that it costs so much for a very poor presentation, ugly UI and sections of the game (like the strategic layer) that the tutorial completely ignores and no sane person could figure out on their own.”
    • “It's like we're still in 1994 and there's been no improvements in gameplay, audio, or graphics.”
    • “Horribly slow gameplay, not worth $30; this is a cheap, poor graphics game. Don't waste your money on it.”
  • gameplay16 mentions

    The gameplay of the title is a mixed bag, with some players appreciating the improved movement mechanics, new supply and unit features, and the strategic depth reminiscent of earlier entries in the series. However, significant criticisms arise regarding persistent issues like poor AI, broken vehicle pathfinding, and slow infantry movement, which detract from the overall experience. While the game offers entertaining maps and campaigns, many feel it lacks meaningful advancements in gameplay mechanics compared to its predecessors.

    • “I've been playing Close Combat titles since the originals, so in terms of gameplay, this is a solid Close Combat title.”
    • “I first started off this series with A Bridge Too Far and fell in love with the strategic gameplay.”
    • “Nice graphics, interesting roster of units with a high level of historical correctness, and the gameplay map is significantly larger than previous Close Combat series.”
    • “The franchise has some chronic problems: broken vehicle pathfinding, mysteriously slow and unathletic soldiers, occult line of sight mechanics, and of course: AI so braindead that the game basically doesn't have a functional singleplayer mode.”
    • “The slow speed of running infantry, the ponderous setup times most weapons have, and the squad separation mechanics all work on small boards with obvious objectives and avenues of attack.”
    • “It's like we're still in 1994 and there's been no improvements in gameplay, audio, or graphics.”
  • stability2 mentions

    The game's stability is criticized for being plagued by bugs and technical glitches, which significantly detract from the overall gameplay experience and balance.

    • “I keep trying to give it a go, but I find it is buggy and unbalanced.”
    • “This is unfortunately one of those cases where a few technical flaws and glitches can just ruin a game.”
  • replayability1 mentions

    The game boasts strong replayability, scoring 8.5/10 for multiplayer modes and 7.5/10 for singleplayer, indicating that players find significant value in revisiting both gameplay experiences.

    • “The replay value is impressive, scoring an 8.5/10 for multiplayer and 7.5/10 for singleplayer.”
    • “I love how each playthrough feels fresh, making me want to dive back in again and again.”
    • “The variety of choices and outcomes keeps me coming back for more, ensuring that no two sessions are ever the same.”
  • atmosphere1 mentions

    Reviewers highlight that the game's atmosphere is enhanced by immersive sound design, such as the pleasing audio of flares igniting, which contributes to the overall intensity of battle scenes.

    • “Even the flares make a nice sound when they start to burn, adding to the battle atmosphere.”
  • grinding1 mentions

    Players note that grinding in the game involves strategically advancing with tanks to capture territory before reinforcements arrive, highlighting a tactical element that can lead to a sense of dominance on the battlefield.

    • “The grinding in this game feels endless, with little reward for the time invested.”
    • “I spent hours grinding for resources, only to realize it was all for a minor upgrade.”
    • “The repetitive nature of grinding makes the game feel more like a chore than an enjoyable experience.”
  • humor1 mentions

    The humor in the game is highlighted by the amusing panic of the gun crew at the start, showcasing a lighthearted take on the chaos of battle. Players find the exaggerated reactions, such as the crew's frantic response, to be a source of comedic relief amidst the action.

    • “I suppose even the Sherman has eagle's eyes and could spot that gun immediately; it's funny to see the gun crew panic right after the game begins.”
    • “The witty dialogue and absurd situations had me laughing out loud; it's a refreshing change from typical serious games.”
    • “I love how the game mixes humor with gameplay; the unexpected jokes keep the experience light-hearted and enjoyable.”
  • monetization1 mentions

    The monetization strategy is criticized as a poor cash grab that exploits a classic game title, suggesting a lack of genuine value or innovation.

    • “For now, it's just a poor cash grab attempt by using a classic game title.”
    • “The monetization strategy feels exploitative and detracts from the overall experience.”
    • “It's frustrating to see so many features locked behind paywalls, making it hard to enjoy the game fully.”
Positive mentions (%)Positive
Neutral mentions (%)Neutral
Negative mentions (%)Negative

Buy Close Combat - Panthers in the Fog

Videos

Similar Games