Close Combat: The Bloody First

52%
Game Brain Score Based on 247 reviews
  • graphics
  • gameplay
  • story
Close Combat: The Bloody First Game Cover
Starting at $10.27Buy now
Get on Steam

"Close Combat: The Bloody First" is the latest installment in the series, now using a 3D engine to enhance gameplay and realism. It follows the US 1st Infantry Division in the North African and Sicilian campaigns of WWII, as well as Normandy, with a focus on tactical command and realism. Diverse 3D landscapes and detailed physics add to the immersive experience.

  • PC
  • Windows
Genres & TagsPlay Modes

Reviews

52%
Audience ScoreBased on 247 reviews
gameplay10 positive mentions
graphics15 negative mentions
  • The game retains the core gameplay of Close Combat, offering a realistic and tactical experience that rewards planning and strategy.
  • The 3D terrain and line of sight tools enhance the tactical depth, allowing for more immersive gameplay compared to previous 2D titles.
  • The dynamic campaign system, where soldiers gain experience and can be shaped by their actions, adds a layer of depth that is appreciated by long-time fans.
  • The game suffers from numerous bugs and performance issues, including crashes and AI problems that detract from the overall experience.
  • Graphics and UI are considered outdated and clunky, failing to meet modern standards and making the game feel less polished.
  • The content is perceived as lacking, with limited campaigns and scenarios, leading to a feeling of incompleteness compared to earlier titles in the series.
  • graphics81 mentions

    The graphics of the game have received overwhelmingly negative feedback, with many users describing them as outdated, bland, and reminiscent of 1990s titles. Critics highlight issues such as poor resolution, clunky UI, and a lack of detail that detracts from the overall experience, often comparing them unfavorably to previous iterations in the series. While some players appreciate the nostalgic elements, the consensus is that the graphics fall short of modern standards, significantly impacting gameplay enjoyment.

    • “The graphics are great and the maps are fun.”
    • “The full 3D map and units, better unit graphics, and the strong contour view puts this game ahead of older games in the series.”
    • “Ai puts up a fight, your own units know how to take cover, when to engage from ambush mode, sounds, graphics, everything is spot on!”
    • “The attempt to bring the graphics into the 21st century has backfired and they are just a gloopy mess where it is next to impossible to spot your own units, let alone the enemy.”
    • “The graphics are disastrous.”
    • “The biggest issue is the graphics; the 2D version of Close Combat was abstract enough that your imagination could fill in the gaps to make it exciting, but this 3D engine lacks so much detail that it actually looks worse than the old CC games.”
  • gameplay38 mentions

    The gameplay of the latest Close Combat title is a mixed bag, with some players appreciating its tactical depth and adherence to the series' roots, while others criticize its movement mechanics, AI performance, and graphical fidelity. Although the game introduces new features and retains core mechanics that evoke nostalgia, many users feel it falls short compared to previous titles, citing bugs and a lack of polish as significant drawbacks. Overall, while some find the gameplay engaging and rewarding, others recommend sticking to older entries in the series for a better experience.

    • “The core gameplay of Close Combat remains relatively more realistic and in-depth compared to recent wargames, which are becoming dumber and more oversimplified, with complete disregard for history or the reality of battle.”
    • “Close Combat has great and unique combat mechanics.”
    • “Gameplay-wise, it's absolutely awesome! I was never a fan of the top view of Close Combat, but now it has opened up very well.”
    • “What is most disappointing is the movement and mechanics of the units.”
    • “Graphics worse than the old original game and glitchy awful, useless gameplay.”
    • “Unfortunately, you'll get more content and better gameplay with less bugs by just playing the older Close Combat titles.”
  • story23 mentions

    The story aspect of the game is generally viewed as a mixed bag; while some players appreciate the progression from battle to battle and the effort to keep troops alive, others criticize the mission structure and user interface, which can lead to frustrating gameplay experiences. Many reviewers note that the game lacks the depth and features of established titles like Combat Mission and Graviteam Tactics, with some missions feeling poorly designed or repetitive. Overall, the narrative experience is seen as enjoyable but hindered by technical issues and a lack of innovation compared to its predecessors.

    • “I do like the storyline of progress from battle to battle. It makes sense, and that feeling of trying to keep troops alive is back.”
    • “For veterans of the Combat Mission series, they'll find themselves right at home.”
    • “If you are a fan of the Combat Mission series, you will feel right at home here, except that there are more details in the graphics, I think.”
    • “Some missions would end with me taking all objectives and breaking enemy morale, and even though that should progress you to the next mission, I ended up being forced to repeat them.”
    • “If you were hoping to build your army mission-by-mission, forming a veteran force that you can rely on to conquer hell itself, you will be sorely disappointed.”
    • “Horrible user interface, missions are very badly set up, you run into not having anything that can even scratch enemy armor, so some missions are not even worth attempting.”
  • stability11 mentions

    The game has been widely criticized for its poor stability, launching in a buggy and unfinished state with numerous glitches, crashes, and gameplay issues. Many players report being unable to play saved games and express frustration over the game's overall performance, likening it to a beta version rather than a polished product. Overall, the stability issues significantly detract from the gaming experience, leading some to consider refunds if improvements are not made.

    • “From some of the early reviews, it seems the game launched in a buggy, broken, unfinished state.”
    • “For a full-priced game, this is barely a beta version; it's buggy all over, so much so it's laughable until you realize you spent £30 on it.”
    • “There are bugs, stutters, glitches, and I've had two crash-to-desktop events.”
  • optimization8 mentions

    The game's optimization is widely criticized, with players reporting significant performance issues, bugs, and poor AI behavior that detract from the overall experience. Despite some positive aspects in gameplay and developer communication regarding future improvements, many users feel the game resembles a beta version due to its clunky controls and subpar graphics. Overall, the lack of effective optimization severely impacts gameplay enjoyment.

    • “Devs are very open and communicate well their intentions for further development in AI, performance, and even creator tools!”
    • “Loaded and runs smoothly.”
    • “I ignored the fact that the graphics look terrible for 2019-2020, thinking I was going to get the classic feel of CC with the detailed platoon and company creation and in-depth map navigation giving it a realistic feel during combat. In some cases, they did well with keeping those aspects in the game, but the game itself is so bugged and poorly optimized that its design ruins almost all of my game attempts. I was able to complete the grand campaign with few bugs that caused me to restart the game, but when going back through and playing the Italian campaign and again on the African campaign, I ran into such terrible problems that I felt I had to say something. For one, the AI is terrible; line of sight fails to spot enemies literally 3 feet away, troops fail to load or fire at all when given fire orders, or will just wander out into the open and get shot, or fail to find cover when ordered to do so. Troops will run up to enemy tanks when they get close and throw grenades at point-blank range, killing themselves without orders.”
    • “But bugs all over, difficult control of units (compared to old titles), performance issues (with a high-end system), and the feeling and look of a beta version (animations/sound/control).”
    • “Optimization is almost non-existent.”
  • replayability2 mentions

    The "veteran" mod significantly enhances the replayability of cc:tbf, potentially adding an impressive 100-200 hours of gameplay. However, there are concerns about the game's future updates and overall playability.

    • “The 'veteran' mod looks like it will double or triple the replay value of CC:TBF (i.e. maybe add another 100-200 hours of gameplay).”
    • “While I am hoping for the game to be updated and made more playable, I have almost no belief that that will happen.”
  • atmosphere2 mentions

    The game's atmosphere is highly praised for its immersive sound design, with players noting that the voices and sound effects significantly enhance the experience. The realistic audio cues, such as enemy shouts and explosive sounds, create a tense and engaging environment that keeps players on edge.

    • “I really like the atmosphere; the voices and sound effects add so much to the game. When I hear a German shout 'obergefreiter', I know an enemy team is now minus its team leader. And when I hear a big explosion, I look worriedly around the screen for who the enemy Tiger tank is targeting, because my guys don't have anything that makes an explosion as loud as an 88mm HE round exploding.”
    • “The atmosphere is nice, and the sound effects are great too.”
    • “The atmosphere is lacking; it feels empty and uninspired, making it hard to immerse myself in the game world.”
    • “While the sound effects are decent, the overall atmosphere fails to create any real tension or excitement during gameplay.”
    • “The game tries to build an atmosphere, but the repetitive environments and dull visuals make it hard to feel engaged.”
  • humor1 mentions

    The humor in the game is perceived as hit-or-miss, with some players finding attempts at comedic elements, like the chicken sounds upon quitting, to be more irritating than amusing, especially in light of frustrating gameplay experiences.

  • music1 mentions

    The music in the game is praised for its nice soundtrack, contributing positively to the overall experience.

    • “The soundtrack is really nice.”
    • “The music adds a great atmosphere to the game.”
    • “I love the variety of tracks in the soundtrack.”
  • emotional1 mentions

    Users find the emotional aspect of the game to be profoundly impactful, often describing experiences as heartbreaking and deeply resonant.

    • “And it was heartbreaking.”
  • grinding1 mentions

    Players find the grinding aspect of the game to be tedious and underwhelming, particularly noting that the setup before battles can feel laborious and detracts from the overall experience.

    • “As soon as the battle began (after a tedious setup), I was just underwhelmed.”
    • “The grinding feels endless and repetitive, making it hard to stay engaged.”
    • “I spent hours leveling up, only to realize it didn't significantly impact my gameplay experience.”
Positive mentions (%)Positive
Neutral mentions (%)Neutral
Negative mentions (%)Negative

Buy Close Combat: The Bloody First

Play time

98hMedian play time
175hAverage play time
10-400hSpent by most gamers
*Based on 5 analyzed playthroughs

Videos

Similar Games