Close Combat - Panthers in the Fog
- November 19, 2012
- Matrix Games
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."
PC
Windows
Reviews
- Fans of the Close Combat series will likely enjoy this installment, as it retains the classic gameplay mechanics and strategic depth.
- The game features improved graphics and sound effects compared to previous titles, enhancing the overall experience.
- Multiplayer gameplay is highlighted as a strong point, providing a more engaging experience than single-player due to the AI's limitations.
- The AI is often criticized for being too passive and unchallenging, leading to a lack of excitement in single-player mode.
- Many players find the game slow-paced with no speed controls, making it feel tedious and unengaging at times.
- There are complaints about technical issues, such as poor pathfinding for units and a lack of essential quality-of-life features that hinder gameplay.
- graphics32 mentions
- 31 % positive mentions
- 56 % neutral mentions
- 13 % negative mentions
The graphics in the game receive mixed reviews, with some players appreciating the attractive maps and hand-drawn visuals, while others criticize the outdated graphics and poor presentation, likening it to games from the 1990s. Although there are minor improvements in explosion and smoke effects, many feel that the overall graphical quality is lacking and does not justify the game's price. The user interface and sound design also contribute to a generally negative perception of the game's visual presentation.
“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).”
“It has simple but nuanced controls, attractive visuals, and extraordinary tactical depth.”
“Nice graphics, interesting roster of units with a high level of historical correctness, gameplay map is significantly larger than previous CC series.”
“I gave it a pass on how the graphics are old and the sound is pretty ho-hum. 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, making it impossible for anyone to 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.”
- gameplay32 mentions
- 9 % positive mentions
- 81 % neutral mentions
- 9 % negative mentions
The gameplay of the latest Close Combat title has received mixed reviews, with some players appreciating improvements like waypoint movement and new supply mechanics, while others criticize persistent issues such as poor AI, slow infantry movement, and broken vehicle pathfinding. Despite these flaws, many find the tactical gameplay engaging and the historical accuracy of units appealing, though some feel the game has not evolved significantly since earlier titles in the series. Overall, while there are enjoyable elements, the gameplay experience is marred by longstanding problems that detract from its potential.
“I've been playing CC 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 CC 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.”
- stability4 mentions
- 0 % positive mentions
- 0 % neutral mentions
- 100 % negative mentions
The game suffers from significant stability issues, with users reporting frequent bugs and unbalanced gameplay that detract from the overall experience. These technical flaws are noted as major obstacles, making it difficult for players to fully enjoy the game.
“This is unfortunately one of those cases where a few technical flaws and glitches can just ruin a game.”
“I keep trying to give it a go, but find it is buggy and unbalanced play.”
- replayability2 mentions
- 150 % positive mentions
- -50 % neutral mentions
- 0 % negative mentions
The game offers strong replayability, particularly in multiplayer mode, which received an impressive score of 8.5/10, while singleplayer mode is rated slightly lower at 7.5/10. Overall, players find ample reasons to revisit the game, especially in multiplayer settings.
“Replay value: 8.5/10 (multiplayer), 7.5/10 (singleplayer).”
“The game offers a high replay value, with multiplayer scoring 8.5/10 and singleplayer at 7.5/10.”
“With a replay value of 8.5/10 for multiplayer and 7.5/10 for singleplayer, this game keeps you coming back for more.”
- atmosphere2 mentions
- 50 % positive mentions
- 50 % neutral mentions
- 0 % negative mentions
The atmosphere of the game is enhanced by immersive sound design, particularly the pleasing audio of flares igniting, which contributes significantly to the overall battle ambiance.
“Even the flares make a nice sound when they start to burn, adding to the battle atmosphere.”
- grinding2 mentions
- 0 % positive mentions
- -50 % neutral mentions
- 150 % negative mentions
Players note that grinding in the game involves strategically advancing and capturing territory, particularly highlighting the German player's ability to gain ground with tanks before facing American reinforcements. This aspect emphasizes tactical maneuvering and resource management during gameplay.
“The grinding in this game feels endless and tedious, making it hard to stay engaged.”
“I find the grinding mechanics to be overly repetitive, which detracts from the overall enjoyment.”
“The amount of grinding required to progress is frustrating and feels like a chore rather than fun.”
- humor2 mentions
- 150 % positive mentions
- -50 % neutral mentions
- 0 % negative mentions
The humor in the game is highlighted by the comical panic of the gun crew at the start, suggesting a lighthearted take on the chaos of battle. Players find amusement in the exaggerated reactions and situations, contributing to an entertaining experience.
“It's hilarious to see the gun crew panic immediately after the game begins, as if the Sherman has eagle's eyes and can spot them right away.”
“The humor in this game is top-notch, especially when the gun crew's panic sets in as soon as the action starts.”
“Watching the gun crew freak out at the start of the game is genuinely funny, making the experience all the more enjoyable.”
- monetization2 mentions
- 0 % positive mentions
- 0 % neutral mentions
- 100 % negative mentions
The monetization strategy is widely criticized as a blatant cash grab, leveraging a classic game title without offering substantial value or innovation.
“For now, it's just a poor cash grab attempt by using a classic game title.”
