Nuclear War Simulator

About

About Nuclear war simulator is a detailed realistic simulation and visualization of large-scale nuclear conflicts with a focus on humanitarian consequences. There are currently over 13000 nuclear weapons on this planet of which over 9000 are in military stockpiles. This software should help you answer the question: what will happen if Russia and the United States or India and Pakistan use their ar…

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Single-Player Play through the game's story or campaign solo

64%

Audience ScoreBased on 326 reviews

graphics10 positive mentions

gameplay3 negative mentions

Great learning device for understanding the consequences of nuclear warfare.
Offers unprecedented levels of customization for creating scenarios and simulating nuclear exchanges.
Detailed simulation with accurate casualty readings and fallout modeling.

Incredibly overpriced for the limited features and functionality provided.
User interface is confusing and poorly designed, making it difficult to navigate and use effectively.
Many features are buggy or non-functional, leading to a frustrating experience.

graphics
26 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
38%
50%
12%
The game's graphics receive mixed reviews, with some praising the clear map visuals and smoke effects from nuclear explosions, while others criticize the overall quality as subpar, likening it to that of an average mobile game. Many users express disappointment in the simplistic and janky UI, as well as the lack of engaging visual design, suggesting that improvements are needed to enhance the overall experience.
- “The game provides a nice graphical view of it showing the nukes leaving smoke effects as they cross the globe, and then can show colored areas to show where the radioactive fallout left from the bombs spreads to.”
- “If you like stunning visuals with copious metrics, this is the app for you.”
- “[*] The graphics on the map are good and clear.”
- “Controls, visuals, and UI are quite jankier than what YouTube gameplay videos suggested.”
- “The visuals in this game are even behind an average mobile game.”
- “Lots of bugs, pretty awful visuals and some questionable reasons for releasing this simulation.”
gameplay
16 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
13%
69%
19%
The gameplay requires a reasonably high-end system and offers increasing depth and enjoyment as players become more familiar with its mechanics, particularly those related to nuclear war. However, the controls, visuals, and user interface are noted to be less polished than expected, which may detract from the overall experience. Ultimately, the game's appeal hinges on the player's interest in the intricate mechanics of nuclear conflict.
- “If you're interested in exploring the effects and mechanics of nuclear war in detail, then this is for you.”
- “Needs a reasonably high-end system; it looks like the depth and enjoyment probably increases as user understanding of gameplay mechanics does.”
- “Controls, visuals, and UI are quite jankier than what YouTube gameplay videos suggested.”
- “It really will simply come down to one thing: how interested are you in the mechanics of nuclear war?”
- “Needs a reasonably high-end system; looks like the depth and enjoyment probably increases as user understanding of gameplay mechanics does.”
stability
12 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game's stability is frequently criticized, with users reporting numerous bugs, glitches, and slow performance that detract from the overall experience. Many feel that these issues, along with clunky AI and outdated visuals, significantly undermine the game's value, suggesting that improvements in these areas could enhance its worth considerably.
- “The game is also full of bugs and glitches and is way overpriced.”
- “I really feel if this game fixed the bugs and glitches and lag, put an actual UI and modern animations and explosion effects, this would be well worth $10-20.”
- “Moving over the North Pole is buggy (and you do that all the time if you have combatants that are in the northern hemisphere who don't share a border).”
story
6 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
17%
50%
33%
The story aspect is noted for its potential to provide accurate and detailed depictions of life during a nuclear war, though some users feel it lacks a compelling narrative. Overall, the emphasis seems to be on realism rather than engaging storytelling.
- “The story provides an accurate and detailed portrayal of people during a nuclear war, making it a compelling narrative.”
- “☑ no story”
- “I guess if you want to write a story about people during a nuclear war, you will definitely get something that can help you be accurate with exacting detail.”
optimization
6 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
33%
33%
33%
The game suffers from poor optimization, with users reporting performance issues and a lack of user-friendly design. Despite being a top-notch simulator, it is plagued by bugs and inadequate information presentation, detracting from the overall experience.
- “Has some performance issues, but all in all, a great simulator.”
- “Things are poorly optimized and information is not well presented.”
- “As a simulator, this is a top-notch tool, but it is not very user-friendly and seems to have a fair amount of bugs and performance issues at this time.”
atmosphere
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
50%
The atmosphere in the game is primarily focused on simulating immediate nuclear strikes, effectively conveying the urgency of finding cover after a missile launch. However, it lacks depth in representing the broader implications of nuclear events, such as agricultural and atmospheric effects, which diminishes its overall immersive experience.
monetization
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
150%
The monetization of the game is widely criticized as exploitative and overpriced, with users feeling scammed for having to repurchase an unfinished product without the option for refunds due to playtime restrictions.
- “This is an unfinished product that is incredibly overpriced and feels like a massive cash grab. I feel scammed after paying for a previous version, re-buying it, and then not being eligible for a refund because I've already played it for over 2 hours.”
- “The monetization strategy is frustrating and makes the game feel like a money grab rather than a genuine experience.”
- “I can't believe how much they charge for in-game items. It feels like they prioritize profit over player satisfaction.”
grinding
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
50%
Players express that the grinding in the game is excessively time-consuming, often requiring a significant investment of time akin to having a "second life" to keep up with the demands.
- “You'll need a second life for grinding.”
replayability
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
50%
Users generally feel that the game lacks significant replayability, indicating that once completed, there is little incentive to play it again.
- “If you play it, there is not much replay value.”
humor
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Users find the humor in the game particularly effective, with repeated praise for the comedic commentary on the "food supply," highlighting it as a standout element.
- “Commenting on the 'food supply' is hilarious.”