This is a good article. Follow the link for more information.

Close Combat (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Close Combat
Close Combat Coverart.png
Developer(s) Atomic Games
Publisher(s) Microsoft
Series Close Combat
Platform(s) Windows, Mac OS
Release July 1996
Genre(s) Computer wargame
Mode(s) Single player, multiplayer

Close Combat is a 1996 real-time computer wargame developed by Atomic Games and published by Microsoft. Set during World War II, it simulates the conflict between the United States' 29th Infantry Division and Germany's 352nd Infantry Division after the Invasion of Normandy. The player controls an artificially intelligent army whose behavior is dictated by psychological models: each soldier makes decisions based on the circumstances of the battlefield and can disobey the player's orders.

Close Combat began production at Atomic Games under publisher Three-Sixty Pacific in the early 1990s. In 1993, Atomic migrated with the project to Avalon Hill, as part of Avalon's attempt to bolster its computer game business. It was originally announced as Beyond Squad Leader, a tie-in to Avalon's million-selling Squad Leader board wargame franchise. However, the companies' relationship was troubled, and Atomic broke away after a high-profile departure at its publisher. Renaming the project Close Combat, Atomic continued production with Microsoft and ultimately released the game in July 1996. Military psychologist Dr. Steven Silver worked with the team to increase the accuracy of Close Combat's psychological modeling.

With sales of 200,000 copies, the game was a commercial success. Critics offered praise to its visuals, and several commended its innovation. Conversely, its slow scrolling was often criticized, and some labeled its use of psychological models as a fundamental mistake. The game started the Close Combat series, which encompassed 17 titles and sold in excess of 5 million copies by 2018. Atomic developed four sequels to Close Combat by 2000 and later created Close Combat: Marines for the United States Marine Corps. Following the company's sale to Destineer, the franchise has continued at other developers under publisher Matrix Games since 2007.


A top-down battle plays out between Germany and the United States near a forest, in one of the bocage regions of France

Close Combat is a real-time computer wargame that takes place from a top-down graphical perspective,[1][2] in contrast to the isometric visuals used in strategy games such as Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness.[2] A simulation of short-distance battles during World War II,[1] Close Combat recreates the conflict between the United States' 29th Infantry Division and Germany's 352nd Infantry Division in the six weeks after the Invasion of Normandy.[3][1] The player is able to control either side and manages infantry, crew-served weapons and armor via six commands: move, fire, move fast, defend, hide and smoke.[4][3][1][2] Tactics such as cover, suppression and unit positioning are required to win; soldiers are vulnerable in large groups and while charging.[5] The game's battles play out in bocage environments, open plains, and towns such as Saint-Lô.[3]

Each soldier in Close Combat behaves according to a simulated psyche, which influences his actions, combat readiness, and obedience to the player's commands.[1][3] Mental and physical combat stresses impact a soldier's behavior and morale;[6][7] an exhausted or scared squad may grow reluctant to shoot or move, or may fire inaccurately.[8] A soldier under severe stress can become shell shocked and entirely unable to fight, or enter a berserk rage.[7] Units will often disobey poor or dangerous orders,[3] such as exiting cover without proper defense measures.[7] The game's artificial intelligence (AI) system allows even an unattended squad to continue fighting and using tactics.[2][3]

Close Combat allows players to fight 39 small-scale confrontations or engage in a long-form campaign, which extends from the Normandy landings to the Battle of Saint-Lô. The 29th Infantry Division wins the campaign by claiming Saint-Lô in under 43 days,[6] while the German side focuses on delaying the United States. Players are given pre-selected forces at the start of each mission, and are scored based on the number of enemy units destroyed and objectives captured at the end.[1] In addition to single-player battles against a computer opponent, the game contains multiplayer support for up to two players.[1][3]


Close Combat began production at Atomic Games as Project X, during the company's time with publisher Three-Sixty Pacific.[9] After breaking with Three-Sixty over business differences, Atomic was signed to Avalon Hill's computer game division in 1993 by Jim Rose.[10][11] Initially, Avalon Hill offered the team a chance to create a one-to-one adaptation of the company's Squad Leader board wargame.[9] A computer version of Squad Leader had been considered at Avalon Hill for several years, as the game and its sequel, Advanced Squad Leader, were commercial successes in board form, with sales over 1 million copies by 1997. However, the complexity of the series had made this idea "too daunting" in the past, according to Computer Gaming World's Terry Coleman.[12] After being shown Project X, Avalon Hill chose to adopt and rebrand the game as Beyond Squad Leader,[9] and the Atomic team started developing this project and the World at War series for their new publisher.[11][13][14] Beyond Squad Leader was initially announced for a September 1994 release,[15] but Computer Gaming World reported a rumor in July 1994 that the game had been postponed to early 1995.[16]

Avalon Hill's contract with Atomic to create Beyond Squad Leader and other titles was a key part of the company's effort, led by Rose, to revive its computer game branch in the face of flagging board game sales.[17] However, the game was not planned as a literal adaptation of the Squad Leader board game.[18][19] Breaking from the physical title's framework, the adaptation focused on simulating the psychology of small groups of soldiers via real-time gameplay. The soldiers' AI dictated much of their behavior beyond the player's control.[11][19] Atomic's president, Keith Zabalaoui, explained at the time that he hoped to capture the experience of real-world military commanders, who "cannot tell what [their] men are going to do in any given situation until it happens". To emphasize this core element, the team automated Advanced Squad Leader's detailed calculations and "focus[ed] on what the game is really all about, which is tactics, and on the play of the game rather than looking up rules", according to Zabalaoui. He expected the game's deviations from the Squad Leader series to prove controversial.[11] Zabalaoui later explained that the inspiration for the project, as a real-time wargame, came from seeing Dune II in the early 1990s.[20]

Atomic and Avalon Hill experienced creative friction during the development of Beyond Squad Leader and the World at War games.[21][22][13] Computer Gaming World columnist Alan Emrich wrote in 1995, "To say there was no love lost between [...] Jim Rose and Atomic's Keith Zabalaoui would be a gracious understatement."[13] By June 1995, Rose had left Avalon Hill to found TalonSoft, and Beyond Squad Leader had entered alpha testing.[23] Speaking with PC Gamer US's wargame columnist William R. Trotter in late 1995, Rose complained that Avalon Hill's parent company, Monarch Office Services, had been disinterested and "conservative" in allocating funds and distribution to the computer game division.[22] He felt that this limited budget and support intensified after Monarch launched the costly magazine Girls' Life, and he left for TalonSoft as a result. Rose argued at the time, "If they'd given me the power and money to do what needed doing, Beyond Squad Leader would be out by now." Avalon Hill Director of Software Development Bill Levay replied that, while the company's decisions "certainly are conservative", the board and computer game divisions were profitable and their overall situation was "really pretty good".[22][13]

Atomic Games sought to recreate the combat stress reactions of real soldiers, and hired a specialist in post-traumatic stress disorder among military veterans to increase Close Combat's accuracy.

Atomic Games split with Avalon Hill during this period,[22] and D-Day: America Invades was the two companies' last game together. According to Emrich, Zabalaoui remarked that this event was "purely a business decision" and that there was no ill will between the companies.[13] While the Beyond Squad Leader title remained Avalon Hill's property,[22] Atomic owned all other aspects of the project and chose to continue development under a new title.[13] At the time, Zabalaoui told Trotter that a large company had recently approached Atomic over the project. He further remarked, "I can't say at this point what the game will be called, although I personally like Close Combat".[22] By December 1995, the game's publisher was announced as Microsoft;[24] Atomic was the first developer contracted in Microsoft's wider push into strategy games, which later included Ensemble Studios.[25] According to Zabalaoui, the project's real-time nature and psychological modeling had attracted the publisher, which at the time was seeking "developers with a good track record who could help get them established." Atomic Games was nearly bankrupt, and the deal saved the company. Beyond Squad Leader was ultimately renamed Close Combat,[9] and Microsoft displayed it at the 1996 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) in May.[26]

To develop the soldiers' psychological modeling in Close Combat, Atomic worked with Dr. Steven Silver, a specialist in post-traumatic stress disorder among military veterans. He had first approached Atomic with his research into state-trait anxiety during the game's initial Project X stage. Collaborating with Silver, the team gave each soldier an individual anxiety index based on tiredness, preparedness, combat experience, past successes, and other factors. According to T. Liam McDonald of boot, these factors were reduced to numbers and incorporated into "probability tables" that determine soldiers' actions and change in response to events during play. Alongside the soldiers' individual psychological models, Atomic designed a model for a squad's overall anxiety; programmer John Anderson explained that "the influence of [the] team and how that team reacts as a unit makes a huge difference as to whether an individual soldier will actually obey [an] order."[7] Two complementary algorithms, tactical (TAI) and strategic (SAI), power the game's AI system. While TAI controls psychological modeling and low-level action, SAI "is constantly analyzing the battlefield for enemy troops and keeping tabs on the big picture", Zabalaoui said.[27] Close Combat features 2,000 source lines of code that relate to psychological modeling,[7] and more CPU time was allocated to its AI simulation than to its visuals.[27]

Atomic adopted a relatively loose team structure for Close Combat: Zabalaoui provided the general plan and oversight, while others designed many sections in large part by themselves. Zabalaoui found that this type of delegated work deepened the game and made development more enjoyable. An overriding goal across the team was to attract both mainstream strategy game players and hardcore wargamers, the latter of whom were known for being difficult to please. According to Zabalaoui, Atomic tried to combine detailed simulation for hardcore players with accessible audiovisuals and a streamlined interface. Historical research for the project continued through the planning stage and into production. After more than three years of development,[27] Close Combat was completed in June 1996. It was originally set for release on July 23, with an expected price point of $40,[28] but certain stores made it available at that price by July 7.[29]


Review scores
CGW3.5/5 stars[1]
PC Zone84/100[3]
Computer Games Strategy Plus5/5 stars[2]
PC Magazine2/5 stars[4]
Next Generation2/5 stars[30]
PC GamesA-[6]
Computer Games Strategy PlusWargame of 1996 (finalist)[31]
PC Gamer USBest Wargame[32]
Computer Game EntertainmentBest War Game (finalist)[33]
Inside Mac GamesStrategy Game of the Year (finalist)[34]

Close Combat was commercially successful.[35][20] Upon its release, it became the United States' 13th-best-selling computer game of July 1996, according to market research firm PC Data.[36] Next Generation reported that it was among Microsoft's "most successful titles" as of March 1997.[37] The game achieved global sales of roughly 200,000 copies by early 1999 and attracted a younger demographic than Atomic's past games. Zabalaoui said that the team was "very pleased" with its commercial performance, and that it had outsold their earlier efforts by around ten to one. However, he noted that it was "frustrating to see Close Combat sell only 200,000 units when other RTS titles sell 5 times that or more."[20]

The reviewer for Computer Games Strategy Plus, Steve Wartofsky, hailed Close Combat as an intuitive combat simulation akin to SimCity 2000. He praised its graphics and streamlined quality and called its in-game documentation "wonderful".[2] The magazine later nominated Close Combat as its pick for the best wargame of 1996, but ultimately gave the prize to that year's Battleground games: Shiloh, Antietam, and Waterloo.[31]

In Computer Gaming World, Patrick C. Miller wrote that the game "looks, sounds and plays like nothing else", and considered it a flawed success. Its originality and tactical realism received high marks, but he heavily criticized its limited documentation, in contrast to Wartofsky's view. This issue was compounded by its unresponsive controls and slow scrolling.[1] While Wartofsky praised Close Combat's stripped-down quality as "focus", including its small-scale campaign and lack of a level editor,[2] Miller considered these signs of the product's shallowness. Close Combat's "focus is too narrow, its depth too limited", he argued.[1]

Next Generation's reviewer echoed Miller's criticism of the jerky scrolling, but disagreed with his overall positive assessment and labeled the game "a serious Microsoft misfire." The writer found its AI system fundamentally flawed and remarked that, while allowing troops to disobey orders is interesting in theory, in practice it makes the game frustrating and unfair.[30] Michael E. Ryan of PC Magazine shared Next Generation's negative view of the game, despite echoing Miller's and Wartofsky's praise for its visuals.[4][1][2] He considered the troop AI questionable and disliked the abundance of on-screen data. "We immediately found ourselves longing for the relative simplicity of Command & Conquer", wrote Ryan.[4]

Conversely, Andrew Wright called Close Combat "a big step forward for wargamers" in PC Zone, despite its scrolling issues. For him, it was an effective compromise between Command & Conquer and the complexity of traditional wargaming.[3] Although again noting the "sluggish" scrolling, PC Games's Andrew Miller agreed with Wright that Close Combat represented a new plateau for computer wargames and held its audiovisuals in particularly high regard.[6] Like the writer for Next Generation,[30] however, he criticized the visuals for being difficult to read: he noted, "I often mistook the American soldiers for shrubs".[6]

In 1997, the editors of PC Gamer US presented Close Combat with their 1996 "Best Wargame" award and remarked that its developers had "broken away from the long-established, turn-based models of the past".[32] It was also nominated in this category by Computer Game Entertainment, but lost the prize to Tigers on the Prowl 2.[33]


Early sequels[edit]

Close Combat was the first game in the long-running Close Combat series, which contained 17 entries and sold above 5 million units by 2018.[38] Its direct sequel, Close Combat: A Bridge Too Far, followed in October 1997. Developed by Atomic Games and published again by Microsoft,[39] the game was a commercial success, with sales equal to those of its predecessor.[20] Following the release of Close Combat III: The Russian Front in December 1998,[40] Microsoft opted to discontinue the Close Combat franchise.[41][42] While all three games had been profitable, Marc Dultz of CNET Gamecenter reported "indications that the company is now only interested in publishing games that have the potential of selling 250,000 units or more."[35] Up to that point, the company had published the Close Combat games on a "title to title" basis, according to Keith Zabalaoui.[20] Atomic reacted by splitting from Microsoft and migrating to Mindscape's Strategic Simulations (SSI) label in April 1999,[41] in order to create Close Combat IV: Battle of the Bulge (1999).[43] Later that year, Zabalaoui said that Microsoft had been "a terrific publisher", and that Atomic had "parted company [with them] as friends who may some day work together again."[44]

Mattel's purchase and divestment of The Learning Company, Atomic Games' publisher, caused significant financial trouble at the company.

Atomic began work on a fifth Close Combat game with SSI in early 2000.[45] However, Mindscape had since been sold to Mattel when that company bought The Learning Company, Mindscape's parent, for $3.5 billion in 1999.[46][47][44] As a result, Close Combat V was published by Mattel Interactive,[48] a financially unstable company. Computer Games Magazine's Robert Mayer noted in September 2000 that "the future of this game series is up in the air—Mattel Interactive is perennially on the trading block, and Atomic ... has lost some key staff members in recent months".[45] Computer Gaming World writer Mark Asher later called Mattel's push into the game industry a "disastrous foray": Mattel's stock dropped and much of its management, including its CEO, was forced to resign.[46]

Late in September, Mattel sold The Learning Company at a bargain price to The Gores Group. A spokesman for the new managers announced that they "plan on having it profitable within six months."[46] The fifth Close Combat, subtitled Invasion Normandy, was released in October.[49] Two months later, Atomic was forced to lay off all employees beyond Zabalaoui and two other senior members after The Gores Group canceled the team's in-development Hammer's Slammers game. Trey Walker of GameSpot reported at the time, "According to Zabalaoui, Gores exercised its right to cancel the project for 'any reason or no reason at all.' "[50]

Later history[edit]

In 2003, Atomic collaborated with the United States Marine Corps (USMC) to develop Close Combat: Marines, published commercially by the USMC and used within the organization and at the United States Military Academy as a training program. Douglass C. Perry of IGN noted that it was the USMC's first-ever game project. Following this title, Atomic worked with Destineer and the USMC on Close Combat: First to Fight, a first-person shooter intended again as a training tool for the military.[51] Announced in April 2004, alongside the strategy title Close Combat: Red Phoenix,[52] First to Fight was described by Peter Tamte of Destineer as an effort to "combine Destineer's first-person technology with Atomic's military expertise".[53] Destineer ultimately purchased Atomic Games in May 2005, with the stated goal of reviving the Close Combat strategy franchise.[54]

In 2006, Destineer licensed the Close Combat intellectual property to Matrix Games; the two companies announced plans to remake and update Atomic's early entries in the series.[55] Partnering with developer CSO Simtek, Matrix began the creation of Close Combat: Cross of Iron, an expanded remake of Close Combat III. The companies decided not to update the first Close Combat, a choice dictated by "the age of the code, and the fact that the series and game engine changed dramatically after the first iteration", according to Simtek's Shaun Wallace.[56] Matrix proceeded to release Cross of Iron in 2007.[57] It was followed by Modern Tactics (2007), Wacht am Rhein (2008) and The Longest Day (2009), developed by Strategy 3 Tactics;[58][59][60] and Last Stand Arnhem (2010), developed by Strategy 3 Tactics and Black Hand Studios.[61] These titles remade Marines, Battle of the Bulge, Invasion Normandy and A Bridge Too Far, respectively.[58][59][60][61]

After completing the remakes, Matrix worked with Slitherine Software to release a new Close Combat entry, Panthers in the Fog, in 2012.[62] Two years later, the companies created Gateway to Caen, the only Close Combat to be released on the Steam platform by that point.[63][64] Another new title in the series, The Bloody First, is slated for 2018.[38][65] Atomic's first five Close Combat entries, including the original Close Combat, were re-released on early that year.[38][66]


  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Miller, Patrick C. (October 1996). "Up Close and Personal". Computer Gaming World (147): 268, 270. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h Wartofsky, Steve (July 25, 1996). "Close Combat". Computer Games Strategy Plus. Archived from the original on April 22, 2005. 
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i Wright, Andrew. "Close Combat". PC Zone. Archived from the original on January 14, 2007. 
  4. ^ a b c d Ryan, Michael E. (October 8, 1996). "After Hours; Win 95 Games: Revolution or Evolution?". PC Magazine. 15 (17): 457, 461. 
  5. ^ Mayer, Robert (August 8, 1996). "Close Combat Hints & Tips Part I". Computer Games Strategy Plus. Archived from the original on October 7, 1997. 
  6. ^ a b c d e Miller, Andrew (October 1996). "Close Combat". PC Games. IDG. Archived from the original on April 17, 1997. 
  7. ^ a b c d e McDonald, T. Liam (November 1996). "Psyche of the Dogface". boot (3): 31, 104. 
  8. ^ "Close Combat Game Theory". Close Combat Game Reference. Microsoft. 1996. pp. 2–4. 
  9. ^ a b c d Zabalaoui, Keith (December 4, 1998). "Designer Diaries: Close Combat III". GameSpot. Archived from the original on April 28, 1999. 
  10. ^ Emrich, Alan (November 1993). "How Goes the Battle?". Computer Gaming World (112): 164. 
  11. ^ a b c d Hawthorne, Don (1993). "Silicon Simulations". The General. 29 (1): 54, 55. 
  12. ^ Coleman, Terry (June 1997). "Silicon Leader". Computer Gaming World (155): 191–193. 
  13. ^ a b c d e f Emrich, Alan (November 1995). "Turning the Telescope Around; G-2". Computer Gaming World (136): 253, 254, 256. 
  14. ^ Emrich, Alan (August 1994). "When in Illuria, Do as the Warlords Do; G-2". Computer Gaming World (121): 101, 102. 
  15. ^ Poole, Stephen (1996). "Vaporware Hall of Shame". GameSpot. Archived from the original on February 5, 1997. 
  16. ^ Santos, Ernie Ryne (July 1994). "Cub Reporters?". The Rumor Bag. Computer Gaming World (120): 166. 
  17. ^ Greenwood, Don (1994). "The Avalon Hill Philosophy Part 161: A Tale of Two Companies". The General. 29 (2): 3. 
  18. ^ Emrich, Alan (November 1994). "Oh Genre, My Genre!; G-2". Computer Gaming World (124): 203, 204. 
  19. ^ a b Emrich, Alan (December 1994). "Windows of Opportunity; G-2". Computer Gaming World (125): 293, 294, 296. 
  20. ^ a b c d e Bates, Jason (February 4, 1999). "Close Combat: The Interview". IGN. Archived from the original on June 13, 2002. 
  21. ^ Coleman, Terry (January 1999). "Close Combat III; Atomic for Power, Turbines for Speed". Computer Gaming World (174): 82, 83, 86. 
  22. ^ a b c d e f Trotter, William R. (December 1995). "The Desktop General; Avalon Hill: On the Ropes or On a Roll?". PC Gamer US. 2 (12): 303, 304. 
  23. ^ Emrich, Alan (June 1995). "Dealing with the Fog of War; G-2". Computer Gaming World (131): 153, 154. 
  24. ^ Staff (December 1995). "Holiday Hot 100; Coming Down the Warpath". Computer Gaming World (137): 150. 
  25. ^ Coleman, Terry (October 1997). "Does Microsoft Know Games?". Computer Gaming World (159): 307, 309, 311, 313. 
  26. ^ Staff (May 30, 1996). "E3 War Games". Computer Games Strategy Plus. Archived from the original on October 7, 1997. 
  27. ^ a b c Udell, Scott (July 18, 1996). "An interview with Keith Zabalaoui, President of Atomic Games". Computer Games Strategy Plus. Archived from the original on January 1, 1997. 
  28. ^ Staff (June 21, 1996). "News for June 21, 1996". Online Gaming Review. Archived from the original on February 7, 1998. 
  29. ^ Staff (July 7, 1996). "News for July 7, 1996". Online Gaming Review. Archived from the original on February 7, 1998. 
  30. ^ a b c Staff (October 1996). "Close Combat". Next Generation (22): 181. 
  31. ^ a b Staff (March 25, 1997). "Computer Games Strategy Plus announces 1996 Awards". Computer Games Strategy Plus. Archived from the original on June 14, 1997. Retrieved November 2, 2010. 
  32. ^ a b "PC Gamer Reveals Its 1997 Award Winners". Business Wire (Press release). Brisbane, California. February 6, 1997. 
  33. ^ a b Staff (July 1997). "The Computer Game Entertainment Awards 1996". Computer Game Entertainment (1): 54–58. 
  34. ^ IMG Staff (1997). "1996 Games of the Year". Inside Mac Games. 5 (2). Archived from the original on February 18, 1998. 
  35. ^ a b Dultz, Marc (April 29, 1999). "Mindscape Picks Up Close Combat". CNET Gamecenter. Archived from the original on August 17, 2000. 
  36. ^ GamerX (August 23, 1996). "July's top 30 games". CNET Gamecenter. Archived from the original on February 5, 1997. 
  37. ^ Staff (March 8, 1997). "Microsoft To Announce Close Combat 2". Next Generation. Archived from the original on June 6, 1997. 
  38. ^ a b c Robinson, Joe (February 6, 2018). "Matrix & GOG Are Bringing Back Close Combat". Wargamer. Archived from the original on February 18, 2018. 
  39. ^ "Close Combat: A Bridge Too Far". GameSpot. Archived from the original on December 8, 2000. 
  40. ^ "GameSpace; Close Combat III: The Russian Front". GameSpot. Archived from the original on January 23, 2001. 
  41. ^ a b Dunkin, Alan (April 28, 1999). "Mindscape Nabs Close Combat". GameSpot. Archived from the original on June 20, 2000. 
  42. ^ McDonald, T. Liam (May 1999). "Game Theory; Where Have All the Wargames Gone?". Maximum PC. 4 (5): 41. 
  43. ^ Geryk, Bruce (December 26, 1999). "Reviews; Close Combat IV: Battle of the Bulge". GameSpot. Archived from the original on January 24, 2001. 
  44. ^ a b Zabalaoui, Keith (September 1999). "A Note From the President; Computer Games for the New Millennia!". Atomic Games. Archived from the original on June 11, 2000. 
  45. ^ a b Udell, Scott (February 21, 2000). "Close Combat V in the works". Computer Games Magazine. Archived from the original on April 6, 2005. 
  46. ^ a b c Asher, Mark (January 2001). "News & Notes; Mattel Dumps Games Division" (198): 44. 
  47. ^ Staff (March 6, 1998). "Pearson loses Mindscape". CNN Money. Archived from the original on February 16, 2005. 
  48. ^ Mayer, Robert (September 18, 2000). "Close Combat Invasion: Normandy". Computer Games Magazine. Archived from the original on April 6, 2005. 
  49. ^ "GameSpace; Close Combat: Invasion Normandy". GameSpot. Archived from the original on April 10, 2001. 
  50. ^ Walker, Trey (December 12, 2000). "Atomic Games Shuts Down". GameSpot. Archived from the original on January 24, 2001. 
  51. ^ Perry, Douglass C. (June 25, 2004). "Close Combat: First to Fight -- First Look". IGN. Archived from the original on July 11, 2004. 
  52. ^ Perry, Douglass C. (April 1, 2004). "Gathering Brings Close Combat". IGN. Archived from the original on June 17, 2004. 
  53. ^ Parrino, Scott (April 8, 2005). "Close Combat: First to Fight". Wargamer. Archived from the original on April 8, 2018. 
  54. ^ Staff (May 5, 2005). "Destineer acquires Atomic Games". GameSpot. Archived from the original on February 13, 2007. 
  55. ^ "PR: Matrix Games Licenses Award-winning Close Combat Series from Destineer" (Press release). Staten Island, NY: Armchair General. October 23, 2006. Archived from the original on July 21, 2013. 
  56. ^ Park, Andrew (October 20, 2006). "Q&A;: Close Combat to get new lease on life". GameSpot. Archived from the original on May 27, 2007. 
  57. ^ Matrix Support (February 13, 2007). "Close Combat: Cross of Iron Now Available!". Matrix Games. Archived from the original on April 8, 2018. 
  58. ^ a b Rutins, Erik (November 14, 2007). "Close Combat: Modern Tactics Now Available!". Matrix Games. Archived from the original on July 17, 2017. 
  59. ^ a b Drummy, Sean (October 28, 2008). "Close Combat - Wacht am Rhein Now Available!". Matrix Games. Archived from the original on June 10, 2016. 
  60. ^ a b Drummy, Sean (April 29, 2009). "Close Combat – The Longest Day Now Available!". Matrix Games. Archived from the original on June 10, 2016. 
  61. ^ a b Drummy, Sean (July 7, 2010). "Close Combat – Last Stand Arnhem Now Available!". Matrix Games. Archived from the original on April 8, 2018. 
  62. ^ Parrino, Scott (November 19, 2012). "Close Combat: Panthers in the Fog Emerges onto the Battlefield!". Matrix Games. Archived from the original on March 27, 2017. 
  63. ^ Baker, Patrick (June 30, 2014). "Close Combat: Gateway to Caen – PC Game Review". Armchair General. Archived from the original on November 9, 2014. 
  64. ^ Schouten, Bart (June 5, 2014). "Close Combat: Gateway to Caen is now available!". Matrix Games. Archived from the original on April 8, 2018. 
  65. ^ Hall, Charlie (February 20, 2018). "Close Combat was nearly done when the developer changed game engines". Polygon. Archived from the original on February 21, 2018. 
  66. ^ Staff (March 20, 2018). "Release: Close Combat: Invasion: Normandy, Cross of Iron, Modern Tactics". Archived from the original on April 8, 2018. 

External links[edit]