Close Combat: The Bloody First

About

"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.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Close Combat: The Bloody First screenshot

54%

Audience ScoreBased on 294 reviews

gameplay12 positive mentions

graphics20 negative mentions

The game successfully brings the classic Close Combat experience into a 3D environment, enhancing tactical gameplay with improved line-of-sight mechanics.
The unit history feature adds depth, allowing players to track the experience and progression of their troops throughout the campaign.
The game offers a nostalgic feel for longtime fans of the series while introducing new elements that can appeal to newcomers.

The game suffers from numerous bugs and performance issues, including crashes and AI problems that hinder gameplay.
The graphics and user interface are considered outdated and lack polish, making it difficult to enjoy the visual experience.
The campaign structure is criticized for being linear and lacking the depth and strategic elements found in previous titles.

graphics
94 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
12%
67%
21%
The graphics of the game have received overwhelmingly negative feedback, with many users describing them as outdated, bland, and reminiscent of 1990s titles.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 visibility, low-resolution textures, and a clunky user interface, which detract from the overall gameplay experience. While some players appreciate the nostalgic aspect of the graphics, the consensus is that significant improvements are needed to meet modern standards.
- “The graphics are great and the maps are fun.”
- “Good game, the 3D environment increases the tactical level and has better graphics.”
- “The full 3D map and units, better unit graphics, and the strong contour view puts this game ahead of older games in the series.”
- “Obsolete graphics with a horrible UI.”
- “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.”
gameplay
45 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
27%
62%
11%
The gameplay of the latest Close Combat title retains the series' core tactical mechanics, offering a blend of complexity and realism, though it suffers from issues like poor unit movement, AI shortcomings, and graphical glitches. While some players appreciate the nostalgic elements and potential for modding to enhance replayability, many express disappointment with the overall execution, suggesting that the game feels dumbed down compared to its predecessors. Overall, while the foundation is solid, significant improvements are needed to elevate the experience and address performance concerns.
- “The core gameplay of Close Combat remains relatively more realistic and in-depth compared to recent wargames, which are becoming dumber and dumber, more nonsensical, oversimplified, with complete disregard for history or 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.”
- “The gameplay was almost what I had hoped for, but the poor animations and general lack of detail across the board kills it.”
- “Unfortunately, you'll get more content and better gameplay with less bugs by just playing the older Close Combat titles.”
story
24 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
13%
75%
13%
The story aspect of the game is generally viewed as a mixed bag, with some players appreciating the progression from battle to battle and the sense of trying to keep troops alive, while others criticize the mission structure and user interface. Many comparisons are drawn to established titles like Combat Mission, with some players feeling that the game lacks the depth and polish of its predecessors, leading to frustration with mission outcomes and gameplay mechanics. Overall, while the narrative framework has potential, it is hampered by execution issues and a lack of innovative features.
- “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.”
- “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.”
- “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.”
stability
11 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game has been widely criticized for its poor stability, launching in a notably buggy and unfinished state. Players report numerous glitches, crashes, and issues with saved games, leading many to feel that it resembles a beta version rather than a polished product. Overall, the game's stability issues significantly detract from the gameplay experience.
- “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.”
optimization
9 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
33%
33%
33%
Overall, the optimization of the game has been criticized for its numerous bugs, poor AI behavior, and performance issues, even on high-end systems. While some players appreciate the gameplay mechanics and the developers' communication regarding future improvements, many feel that the game resembles a beta version due to its clunky controls and subpar graphics. Enhancements in terrain mapping, cover mechanics, and modding support are suggested as necessary for a better experience.
- “Devs are very open and communicate well their intentions for further development in AI, performance, and even creator tools!”
- “Loaded and runs smoothly.”
- “If they added proper terrain mapping, improved the cover mechanics, dropped the weird linear campaign and made it more like 5's, improved modding support and fixed the odd performance issues, then the concept of 3DCC could turn into the best title of the series.”
- “I ignored the fact that the graphics look terrible for 2019-2020, thinking I was going to get the classic feel of CC with detailed platoon and company creation and in-depth map navigation. While they did keep some aspects in the game, the game itself is so bugged and poorly optimized that its design ruins almost all of my attempts. I was able to complete the grand campaign with few bugs, but when playing the Italian and African campaigns, I encountered terrible problems. The AI is terrible, line of sight fails to spot enemies literally 3 feet away, troops fail to load or fire when given orders, and they often wander into the open and get shot. Troops will run up to enemy tanks and throw grenades at point-blank range, killing themselves without orders.”
- “Optimization is almost non-existent.”
- “But bugs are all over, there is difficult control of units (compared to old titles), performance issues (even with a high-end system), and the game feels and looks like a beta version (animations/sound/control).”
replayability
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The "veteran" mod significantly enhances the replayability of cc:tbf, potentially adding an extra 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.”
atmosphere
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
50%
The game's atmosphere is enhanced by immersive sound effects and voice acting, which effectively convey tension and urgency during gameplay. Players appreciate how audio cues, such as enemy shouts and explosions, contribute to a heightened sense of realism and engagement.
- “Nice atmosphere and sound effects too.”
- “However, I do like the atmosphere the voices and sound effects add 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.”
monetization
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
300%
The monetization of these new CC games is widely criticized as a cash grab by a company that has taken over the rights, leading to dissatisfaction among users.
- “These 'new' mobile games are all a cash grab from a company that inherited the rights.”
- “The monetization strategy feels exploitative, prioritizing profit over player experience.”
- “It's frustrating to see so many features locked behind paywalls, making it hard to enjoy the game without spending money.”
humor
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The humor in the game is perceived as misguided, with some players finding attempts at comedic elements, like the chicken sounds upon quitting, to be more irritating than amusing, especially in light of their negative experiences with the game's overall quality.
music
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
300%
The music in the game is praised for its nice soundtrack, contributing positively to the overall experience.
- “The soundtrack is fantastic and really enhances the overall experience.”
- “I love the variety of music tracks; they keep the gameplay fresh and engaging.”
- “The music perfectly complements the game's atmosphere, making every moment memorable.”
emotional
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Users find the emotional aspect of the game to be profoundly impactful, often describing experiences as heartbreaking and deeply resonant.
- “And it was heartbreaking.”
grinding
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
300%
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.”