|
|
When SSI decided to continue
publishing Atomic Games Close Combat series after Microsoft abandoned it, it made a
lot of wargamers very happy. When SSI decided to use the engine to produce yet another
Battle of the Bulge game, it made a lot of wargamers heads hurt. Its not that
the Bulge isnt a good gaming scenarioits OKits just that the
Bulge is probably the most overworked wargame subject ever. From AHs classic Battle of the Bulge to SSIs
underrated Ardennes Offensive, wargames have been made and remade about the Bulge while
other--very worthy--game subjects have gone begging. For example, many wanted CCIV to be a Guadalcanal gameand what
a game it would have beenbut no, instead we get yet another visit with the battlin
bastards of Bastogne. Whats done is
done, however, and I guess theres always room for another good Bulge game (like GMTs
Tigers in the Mist or the Gamers Ardennes Offensive). And thats just what
Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge is. For those of you unfamiliar with the Close
Combat game system, its a real-time squad level wargame (think computerized Squad
Leader). You can play either individual scenarios, large campaigns made up of many
scenarios, or smaller operations of fewer scenarios. In each scenario you control about
10-15 squads or vehicles, and the CC system is especially renowned for modeling the
effects of psychology and morale on the battlefield. Tell your troops to run across a
field, and theyll get tired. Tell them to attack a Panther with rifles, and theyll
think twice about it. Tell them to charge into heavy tank and machine gun fire, and theyll
probably tell you exactly where to go. It makes for a realistic and tense game, one that
has found favor with both casual gamers and all but the most hidebound of turn-based
grognards. As the series has developed, each game has added new featureslike
elevation, leadership, and different troop and weapon types. This time, the system has
been blessed with the addition of two big improvementsair and offboard artillery
attacks and a workable strategic game. The new strategic game is especially welcome. The previous Close Combat games consisted of a
series of scenarios from a specific campaignNormandy, Market-Garden, and Russia. While the individual scenarios were enjoyable,
Atomic never really found a way to tie them together in a viable campaign. With Battle of
the Bulge, they have. If you choose to play the campaign, youll move units about on
a strategic map of the Ardennes made up of areas (much like GMTs Tigers in the
Mist). You can only have one battle group (a small unit made up of about 10-15
units and representative of a division) in each area, and when your battle group occupies
the same area as an enemy group, youll be switched to the tactical map to battle it
out. Do well, and your side will send the enemy scurrying in retreat; screw up, and youll
find yourself running out of room and the reserves necessary to reinforce your chewed-up
forces. While the strategic game isnt particularly deep, it is fun, and does take
account of such important Bulge phenomena like supply depots and the Operation Greif
commandos. Youll also be able to assign theatre resources like off-board artillery
and air units to particularly volatile sectors fo the front. Unlike CC3, you cant
purchase specific units in the campaignyoure pretty much stuck with what your
battlegroups give you. Though some may miss tailoring their own fire brigades, I much
prefer the realism of Battle of the Bulge.
When facing an SS Panzer division with a battlegroup of green U.S. infantry and no
anti-tank weapons, it gives you something of the feel for what the beleaguered GIs went
through on the first couple days of the surprise German attack. In the tactical scenarios, the game has changed
very little. You still give the same ordersmove, move fast, sneak, fire, smoke,
defend, and ambush, and the same elegant click-and-drag interface is still in place. As in
Close Combat III, leaders are very important and impart valuable morale bonuses. The games
strength still lies in its spot-on representation of WWII infantry tactics. The only way
to succeed is by using cover, smoke, and fire-and-move tactics. Suicidal attacks just dont
get it in this game. The only really noticeable change to games tactical side is the
addition of air attacks and off-board arty, something fans have been begging for since the
first Close Combat. They seem pretty well implemented. Sometimes a barrage of off-board
artillery will devastate an enemy force; sometimes itll miss entirely. Air attacks
tend to be more efficient, but rightly so; when the cloud cover lifts and the allied air
supremacy makes itself felt, youll know why Patton asked his chaplain to compose a
prayer for good weather. Graphically, the game is on par with CCIII, and
even has some improvementsI particularly like the way tanks belch out smoke, and
explosions seem much more spectacular than in the previous games. But Battle of the Bulge
also has some graphical shortcomings, mostly due to the fact the Bugle was fought around
Christmas, and all the maps are covered in snow. This is particularly problematic when it
comes to spotting your infantry units, almost all of whom are wearing (very effective)
winter camouflage. Losing track of your infantry has always been a problem with the CC
series, and the solution has always been to use the games graphic options to outline
them in red or green or some status indicator color, but its not a happy aesthetic
compromise. Similarly, its always been difficult to get a feel for elevation in the
Close Combat seriesand its even worse in Battle of the Bulge, where the white
background tends to obliterate any hints at terrain elevation. Neither of these problems is insuperable, but theyre
a pain, and taken together point to the next logical step for the series3D. The games sound is
exceptionally goodas in the previous games in the series, your units will shout out
warnings if they take an objective or are taking too much fire, and the weapons effects
are first-rate throughout. For all my enthusiasm about Battle of the Bulge, it does have a
few problems that need to be addressed. First, the AIespecially the armor AI--does
have some problems. While ones own tanks usually behave pretty well, and rarely turn
their flanks or rears to the enemy, your opponents tanks will sometimes behave in
very odd ways. Strangely enough, this doesnt happen all the time. Ive played
scenarios in which German tanks stood off in cover and out of range and provided covering
fire for an infantry assault. Great stuff. But Ive also seen JagdTigers rumble
blindly into villages packed with bazooka-armed infantry, where they were quickly
dispatched. And the game also tends to get a little repetitive. Almost every scenario
entails either taking or holding a small town, and while much of the real battle was
fought in this way, it still gets a bit tiresome. Overall, Close Combat IV is a
more-than-worthy entry in the CC series. The addition of a solid and enjoyable strategic
game and off-board air and artillery are big steps forward for the series. But some things
remain to be done, including improving the AI, making terrain graphics less ambiguous, and
giving some thought to moving to a 3D graphics engine. And lets not forget about
that Guadalcanal campaign, either. |