Close Combat: The Bloody First

About

Close Combat: The Bloody First is a single player and multiplayer real-time strategy game with warfare and historical themes. It was developed by Matrix Games and was released on October 3, 2019. It received neutral reviews from players.

"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

Skip User Reviews

53%

Audience ScoreBased on 298 reviews

gameplay12 positive mentions

graphics21 negative mentions

The game retains the core tactical gameplay of the original Close Combat series, providing a nostalgic experience for long-time fans.
The 3D graphics and line of sight mechanics add a new layer of strategy and realism to the gameplay.
The dynamic campaign system allows for continuity of troop experience and morale, enhancing the overall tactical experience.

The game suffers from numerous bugs and performance issues, including crashes and AI problems that hinder gameplay.
The user interface is clunky and lacks clarity, making it difficult to issue commands and understand unit statuses.
Many players feel that the graphics are subpar for a modern game, and the overall presentation lacks polish compared to other contemporary titles.

graphics
95 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
12%
66%
22%
The graphics of the game have received overwhelmingly negative feedback, with many users describing them as outdated, bland, and reminiscent of titles from the 1990s. Critics highlight issues such as poor resolution, clunky user interface, and a lack of detail that detracts 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 realism and depth, 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 game's execution compared to its predecessors, suggesting that it lacks polish and complexity. Overall, the gameplay is seen as solid yet flawed, with a need for significant improvements to meet player expectations.
- “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.”
- “The 'veteran' mod looks like it will double or triple the replay value of CC:TBF, potentially adding another 100-200 hours of gameplay.”
- “Close Combat has great and unique combat mechanics.”
- “The first actual gameplay gripe I have is that soldiers will only hide behind hedgerows and not in them.”
- “What is most disappointing is the movement and mechanics of the units.”
- “Unfortunately, you'll get more content and better gameplay with fewer bugs by just playing the older Close Combat titles.”
story
24 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
13%
74%
13%
The game's story is described as a progression from battle to battle, providing a sense of continuity and the challenge of keeping troops alive, which resonates well with fans of the combat mission series. However, players express disappointment with mission setups and user interface issues, leading to frustrating experiences where objectives do not always lead to expected progression. Overall, while the narrative structure has potential, it is marred by gameplay inconsistencies and a lack of depth in certain 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 instability, launching in a notably buggy and unfinished state, with numerous glitches, crashes, and gameplay issues reported by users. Many players express frustration over the game's performance, likening it to a beta version rather than a polished product, and some are considering refunds if improvements are not made in future patches.
- “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%
34%
33%
Overall, the optimization of the game has been widely criticized, with users reporting significant performance issues, bugs, and poor AI behavior that detract from the gameplay experience. While some players appreciate the core mechanics and potential for improvement, the game's current state feels unpolished and reminiscent of a beta version, leading to frustration during play. Despite the developers' openness to feedback and plans for future enhancements, many feel that the game requires substantial optimization to reach its full potential.
- “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 of the game, it 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, but when going back through the Italian and African campaigns, I ran into 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).”
monetization
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The monetization strategy of the new CC games is widely criticized as a cash grab, with players feeling that the company has prioritized profit over quality and player experience.
- “These 'new' CC 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 fully without spending extra money.”
music
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The music in the game is praised for its nice soundtrack, contributing positively to the overall experience.
- “The soundtrack is fantastic.”
- “The music really enhances the overall experience.”
- “I love the variety of tracks in the game.”
grinding
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players find the grinding aspect of the game to be tedious and unfulfilling, often feeling underwhelmed after lengthy preparation for battles.
- “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.”
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 the tension of combat situations, such as the recognition of enemy commands and the impact of explosions. Players appreciate how these auditory elements contribute to a heightened sense of realism and engagement in the gameplay experience.
- “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.”
humor
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
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 other frustrations with the game. Overall, the humor does not resonate well with all users, often detracting from their experience.
emotional
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players find the emotional aspect of the game to be deeply impactful, often describing experiences as heartbreaking and resonant.
- “And it was heartbreaking.”

Skip Game Offers

Buy Close Combat: The Bloody First

98h Median play time

175h Average play time

10-400h Spent by most gamers

*Based on 5 analyzed playthroughs

Skip Videos

Videos

Skip Games Like Close Combat: The Bloody First

69%18.9kreviews

Company of Heroes 3

2023

Tactical Turn-based Strategy

81%15.8kreviews

Call to Arms

2018

Real-time Strategy

68%2.7kreviews

Men of War II

2023

Tactical Real-time Strategy

83%842reviews

Combat Mission Shock Force 2

2020

Turn-based Strategy

89%703reviews

Graviteam Tactics: Mius-Front

2016

Strategy

More games like Close Combat: The Bloody First

Skip FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions

Close Combat: The Bloody First is a real-time strategy game with warfare and historical themes.

Close Combat: The Bloody First is available on PC and Windows.

On average players spend around 175 hours playing Close Combat: The Bloody First.

Close Combat: The Bloody First was released on October 3, 2019.

Close Combat: The Bloody First was developed by Matrix Games.

Close Combat: The Bloody First has received neutral reviews from players. Most players liked this game for its gameplay but disliked it for its graphics.

Close Combat: The Bloody First is a single player game with multiplayer support.

Similar games include Company of Heroes 3, Call to Arms, Men of War II, Combat Mission Shock Force 2, Graviteam Tactics: Mius-Front and others.

Close Combat: The Bloody First

Platforms

Buy Close Combat: The Bloody First