Close Combat: Gateway to Caen

 PC
User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 9 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 9
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 9
  3. Negative: 2 out of 9

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. djvampyre
    Jun 14, 2014
    2
    It's a pretty "meh" game. No real improvements to speak of over Normandy. AI is still absolutely terrible. Explosions look slightly better that's about it. It's the same game as over a decade ago. The interface with how you view and arrange your troops prior to the battle is worse than previous games. I don't really understand how a game cooks for over ten years and comes out with a crappyIt's a pretty "meh" game. No real improvements to speak of over Normandy. AI is still absolutely terrible. Explosions look slightly better that's about it. It's the same game as over a decade ago. The interface with how you view and arrange your troops prior to the battle is worse than previous games. I don't really understand how a game cooks for over ten years and comes out with a crappy interface. Then again Diablo 3 was a disappointment in every way after a longer wait time... so I can't say I'm surprised by this. It's the new age of "lets release crap on Steam because they have no standards and make money while we still can." Should have been a free MOD 10 years ago (which I think it mostly was in terms of work put in) def not a stand alone 50$ game. Huge ripoff.… Expand
  2. KurtisMayfield
    Sep 4, 2014
    4
    Close Combat: Gateway to Caen is basically an expansion pack that is asking for stand alone game prices. If you have played Close Combat games before, the interface and concept is exactly the same and has not changed much since the release of CC:Invasion of Normandy. The game contains new maps, some changes to the strategic map, and some new units and explosions.

    The problem is that the    Close Combat: Gateway to Caen is basically an expansion pack that is asking for stand alone game prices. If you have played Close Combat games before, the interface and concept is exactly the same and has not changed much since the release of CC:Invasion of Normandy. The game contains new maps, some changes to the strategic map, and some new units and explosions.

    The problem is that the AI is still horrid. It cannot handle combined arms, despite all of the statements to the contrary by the developers/modders. Tank AI is still dreadful. The AI relies too much on mortar fire (Sometimes having 3-4 squads of mortars). The AI cannot lay down a competent defence using terrain to its advantage, nor can it mount a competent offence with combined arms. Sometimes the AI does mount at attack with 2-3 squads of soldiers and a tank to support, but that situation is rare and I believe it is a stroke of luck.

    The biggest insult is the cost. Matrix is asking for $40 US for a game that is basically a mod/expansion pack. I know they argue this is a niche audience, but your pricing may be driving your product to be niche. Especially if you are not making any major improvements to the game.

    The only reason I am not giving this a 2 is that #1. The game is stable and it runs well, and #2. It does deliver exactly what is promised, another update to the CC series. The problems with CC however have existed for over a decade (Tank AI, combined arms) and have still not been addressed.    … Expand

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
tbd

No score yet - based on 2 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 2
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 2
  3. Negative: 0 out of 2
  1. Pelit (Finland)
    Oct 25, 2014
    83
    Close Combat: Gateway to Caen shows the age of the game engine, but hey! It still works pretty well. [Oct 2014]
  2. PC PowerPlay
    Aug 27, 2014
    80
    Still a gripping wargaming experience, despite an aging engine. Does a great job of capturing the nuances of the campaign. [Sept 2014, p.58]