Rating: 
Summary: Great Game. Ignore garbage reviews focused on graphics.
Review: And as for the arguement on divisional and battalion fronts, have you ever read a history of Operation Market Garden? All was hell. None of the jeeps equipped with radios landed safely. None of the jeeps with .50 caliber MG's made it safely to the ground. I agree, firing accuracy has much more to be desired.Be glad the same calls for the adversary, whomever it may be. This game, when it came out, was on top of all other squad-based real-time combat strategy games when it came to both graphics and AI. Not to mention historical accuracy, which is what drove me to continue with the Close Combat series. Furhtermore, the folks at Atomic made a good move when switching from Microsoft to SSI. SSI has a better name for combat strategy (Strategic Simulations Inc.) and there's a very good reason behind it. A Bridge Too Far takes place during a campaign that didn't have supply lines. Hence, no big artillery. Also, in the history books, you will see that there was no artillery at Market Garden, only the too-late XXX Corps (British armor). The game elaborates on XXX Corps' armaments as it is, so be grateful. As for fronts - what fronts? You pull men out of one "flank" and put them in another, and you lose ground. The only way to avoid this is to have played the game before. This goes for both sides. If you play the German side, you lose valuable ground in the early days of Market Garden. If you don't push hard in the first _HOURS_ as the allies, you will never - realistically - have the option of reinforcing your "flanks". That is, not until XXX Corps gets there. This is a great game. It incorporates historical accuracy, a great engine (even if it does seem primitive by today's standards), and awesome gameplay to deliver a powerhouse of realistic combat. Okay, okay, apart from the crippling inaccuracy. But remember, this is C&C, or Army Men, or even Commandos, where if you point and click, you hit. It's real-time squad-level combat strategy. This equates to = realism. If it doesn't, it should. If it shouldn't, it isn't real-time squad-level combat strategy, now is it? Don't listen to people saying it's a [crud] game because of the graphics. Let them stick with Final Fantasy. This is a great game, and anyone who enjoy great gameplay with a convincing and engaging gaming atmosphere will agree. "20 digits up."
Rating: 
Summary: close combat a bridge too far by broderbund
Review: microsoft is better. will not play on mac
Rating: 
Summary: Good Game
Review: Much better than the original Close Combat and in some ways better than Close Combat (Battle of the Bulge).
Rating:
Summary: A Campaign Too Far
Review: This is a brilliant game; realistic rendering of British, US, Polish and of course German units. A great variety of weapons, from Bren guns and obscure British tanks to King Tiger tanks. Battles are fierce but fun. It is worth getting for the tremendous battlemaker alone. This is the easiest to use of the Close Combat series, allowing you to quickly create your own rumbles with whatever units and maps you want (though not scenarios). However, if you are playing the computer, STICK TO THE BATTLES. Don't even start playing the campaigns, especially the grand campaign. This is frustrating, drawn out, repetitive and often just silly. You get so few resources from the outset in many battles that they end up being a chore to play. In addition, many of your units are full of bad shots, cowards and weaklings. Whole assault glider platoons can be overwhelmed by one German with a loose bayonet. Whole groups can be singlehandedly bombed to death by one mortar. Gun crews suddenly up and desert their positions. I love the Close Combat series for its commitment to realism but this goes too far. You'd think the units in this game were from Dad's army rather than the elite veterans of the British and US forces airborne divisions. The makers should incorporate court martial procedures into the game to give gamers some vent to their frustration with the cowards.
Rating:
Summary: a bridge too far
Review: This is a good game with lack luster graphics. The tank and troopers look alright but they could have done a lot better. You get the feeling that this game sat on the shelf for a while before the decided to release it. It could have been really special if they had put some more time in it.
Rating:
Summary: A Smashing Game!
Review: This is a great game for the thousands of strategy lovers like me around the world. This game is a keeper.
Rating: 
Summary: Promising but deceptive
Review: This is a well-thought game that could deliver much more than what one actually gets. Graphics are not up to today's standards at all; teams have a rather limited number of possible actions; they are *really* bad at firing; mortars have almost no effect; one cannot save and continue during a battle; multiplayer games are restricted to two players. To crown it all, many of the versions in the market do not even come with a manual. Strategically speaking, this game lacks a lot of real-war issues, specially the fact that one cannot influence his supply line (except for waiting longer or shorter after each battle), while in real warfare this is a *crucial* element. Two-bit battles without the overall picture of a war. My recommendation: were it not because it is under $10, I would tell you to stay away from it. But then, it has come to be really cheap... I would still be banging my head against the wall if I had shelled out $45 for this game at release time (when other games like Age of Empires or Quake used technology infinitely better than this one).
Rating:
Summary: Promising but deceptive
Review: This is a well-thought game that could deliver much more than what one actually gets. Graphics are not up to today's standards at all; teams have a rather limited number of possible actions; they are *really* bad at firing; mortars have almost no effect; one cannot save and continue during a battle; multiplayer games are restricted to two players. To crown it all, many of the versions in the market do not even come with a manual. Strategically speaking, this game lacks a lot of real-war issues, specially the fact that one cannot influence his supply line (except for waiting longer or shorter after each battle), while in real warfare this is a *crucial* element. Two-bit battles without the overall picture of a war. My recommendation: were it not because it is under $10, I would tell you to stay away from it. But then, it has come to be really cheap... I would still be banging my head against the wall if I had shelled out $45 for this game at release time (when other games like Age of Empires or Quake used technology infinitely better than this one).
Rating:
Summary: A Game Too Good
Review: This war/close combat simulation is an entertaining and fun game to play. In it's toughness it keeps making you keep wanting to play it more and more and some people may get "hooked" on it. It's a great strategy type game thats fun to play all the time.
Rating:
Summary: Waiting for an upgrade
Review: Yeah, that could have really been upgraded years ago, since it is almost 4 years since the first release. Quite limited capabilities of the troops, and the most frustrating - not a single battle is actually linked with a following one. They could have made a Division size front line, where you fight by a Battalion, so that you operate on a 9 Battalions wide front line:at least one would have space for maneuvering the troops, reserves, artillery (had there been one) etc, reinforcing one flank for attack and keeping another in defence, making it more realistic and exciting. Otherwise, still worth buying at least for the garage sale price...
| 
