Supremacy 1914

About

Supremacy 1914 is a multiplayer strategy game. It was developed by Bytro Labs GmbH and was released on July 16, 2019. It received mostly positive reviews from players.

Supremacy 1914: World War 1 is a browser-based game where you choose a country and engage in real-time strategic warfare against up to 500 players. With historically accurate troops and resources, players must utilize diplomacy, war tactics, and smart resource management to conquer provinces and dominate the global stage. Each territory offers unique advantages, providing endless replayability in historical and fictional battles.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Skip User Reviews

69%

Audience ScoreBased on 2,134 reviews

gameplay12 positive mentions

monetization16 negative mentions

The game offers a rich and intricate strategy experience reminiscent of classic board games like Risk and Axis & Allies.
It allows for deep strategic planning and diplomacy, making it engaging for players who enjoy long-term strategy games.
The community aspect is strong, with opportunities for alliances and betrayals, adding a layer of social strategy.

The game is heavily pay-to-win, with players who spend money gaining significant advantages over free-to-play users.
Gameplay is extremely slow, with actions taking hours or even days to complete, which can be frustrating for players looking for quicker results.
There are numerous bugs and issues with the game's mechanics, including problems with troop movement and AI behavior.

gameplay
88 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
14%
75%
11%
The gameplay is characterized by a mix of strategic depth and simplicity, offering fun and engaging mechanics, though it suffers from long wait times for troop movements and actions, which can detract from the experience. Players appreciate the real-time elements and the ability to check in periodically, but many express frustration over pay-to-win mechanics and bugs that disrupt gameplay. Overall, while the game has its charm and can be enjoyable, it requires significant time investment and has notable flaws that may hinder enjoyment for some players.
- “The gameplay is very fun and in depth.”
- “It has simple mechanics, but also a lot of strategy and planning to it.”
- “Now, the actual reason I give this a good review is because in terms of actual strategy and tactical gameplay, it's brilliant to use, seems to have a perfect learning curve, and I can say that honestly as I've introduced 3 other friends to this game and 2 family members, and we have all played together, and it's amazingly fun and easy to use.”
- “Loads of bugs to be fixed and there are not a lot of units and mechanics.”
- “Battles can take upwards of 30 minutes to 1 hour to resolve and make no sense half the time, with very oddly written combat mechanics that sometimes feel like random results that negate any planning you've done.”
- “There is nothing about the mechanics that make the tedious nature of the game worth the time investment.”
monetization
34 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
6%
47%
47%
The monetization model of the game has drawn significant criticism, with many players labeling it a "cash grab" due to the heavy reliance on microtransactions that disrupt gameplay balance, favoring paying players. While some users appreciate the option to earn premium currency through gameplay or ads, the overall sentiment suggests that the game would be more enjoyable without the pervasive in-game purchases and long wait times. Many reviewers recommend alternative games that offer a more balanced experience without such monetization tactics.
- “Although it has in-game purchase options, it doesn't feel at all necessary.”
- “The premium currency can be earned by winning or, of course, through in-game purchases.”
- “The only way to win or even survive is through microtransactions.”
- “It is so obvious that the game is just a cash grab right now, even if they decided to change to that type after the fact.”
- “Simple game that could scratch an itch for playing diplomacy online on a larger scale, but the choice of a free-to-play monetization model designed for whale hunting removes any interest.”
graphics
26 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
46%
42%
12%
The graphics of "Supremacy 1914" have evolved significantly from its earlier minimalistic style to a more polished and visually appealing presentation, focusing on functional map details and unit movements rather than high-end visuals. While some players appreciate the improvements, others express concerns about balance issues and occasional graphical crashes. Overall, the game maintains a solid graphical quality that aligns well with its strategic gameplay.
- “Graphically, 'Supremacy 1914' leans towards functional rather than flashy, with a focus on map details and unit movements over high-end visuals, which is typical for games of this genre.”
- “The mechanics are still the same; only the graphics are way more appealing now.”
- “I have to say the game has come quite a long way from its minimalistic approach in the past to a very polished and even graphically appealing game. This is very exciting to see.”
- “Some parts of the game cause graphics crashes where the game then 'restarts' and locks up.”
- “Other than a few changes in graphics, everything seems to be the same.”
- “---{ graphics }---”
story
20 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
15%
65%
20%
The game's story is largely absent or minimal, with many players noting that it focuses primarily on gameplay mechanics rather than narrative development. While some mention a basic storyline, it is overshadowed by the gameplay experience, which involves lengthy wait times and resource management rather than engaging storytelling. Overall, the consensus is that the game lacks a compelling narrative.
- “Moral of the story: I'm in a bloody conflict that shouldn't be happening. I have triple his territory easily and multiple allies on all sides of him, yet he's holding everyone off by dumping hundreds into a free game.”
- “There is a story, but most of the game is focused on gameplay.”
- “Only gameplay, doesn't include a story.”
- “☑ no story”
- “☑ only gameplay, doesn't include a story.”
- “☐ there is a story, but most of the game is focused on gameplay.”
humor
10 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The humor in the game is described as hilariously chaotic, likened to leading a pack of pigeons during WW1, and often stems from the absurdity of in-game situations, such as losing significant progress due to premium currency mechanics. Players find amusement in the interactions and antics within the game, even suggesting it can be entertaining to mess with others. However, some humor is tinged with criticism, as it has led to the game being banned for Iranian users, highlighting a controversial aspect of its comedic elements.
- “Feels like leading a pack of pigeons during WW1, hilariously chaotic!”
- “He just directly put me back to zero after two weeks of invested time and thought from my side with his equivalent of ~80 € in premium currency (yes, I calculated from the damage my provinces took and couldn't stop laughing about this guy).”
- “Suggest that to everyone else, can be quite funny to mess with them a little here and there.”
music
8 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
25%
25%
The music in the game is generally well-received, with players noting that it complements the gameplay and enhances immersion, evoking feelings of inspiration and somberness. However, some users feel that the game lacks sufficient background music and sound effects, leading to a less impactful audio experience overall.
- “The in-game music fits the gameplay perfectly.”
- “The soundtracks are either inspiring or somber enough to immerse myself - in my opinion - as a general/ruler of a nation.”
- “The music, graphics, and sound effects are nice, contributing to a lot of strategies for what units to train and the diplomatic aspects.”
- “The game is missing background music, sound effects, and overall sound design. It's not completely mute, but it lacks depth in audio.”
- “The game is missing background music, sound effects, and overall sound design. It's not completely mute, but it lacks depth in audio.”
grinding
8 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
38%
24%
38%
Players generally find the grinding aspect of the game to be tedious and sometimes excessive, with many feeling that it detracts from the overall experience. The mechanics do not seem to justify the time investment required for grinding, leading to a sense of frustration.
- “It can be a bit grindy sometimes, but it's worth it.”
- “Grinding can feel a bit repetitive at times, yet it adds depth to the gameplay.”
- “You'll need a second life for grinding, but the rewards make it enjoyable.”
- “There is nothing about the mechanics that make the tedious nature of the game worth the time investment.”
- “You'll need a second life for grinding.”
- “It's a bit grindy sometimes.”
optimization
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game's optimization has been widely criticized, with users reporting severe issues that significantly hinder performance. Many describe the optimization as "horrible" and "completely shit," indicating a frustrating experience that detracts from gameplay.
- “But there's a lot of pay-to-win, and the servers or how the game is optimized is completely terrible; there's no other way to describe it.”
- “Real bad optimization.”
stability
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game suffers from significant stability issues, with frequent computer glitches and feature freezes that often require players to restart. This has led to a frustrating experience for many users.
- “Lots of glitches, had to restart the game often because features freeze up a lot.”
- “Computer glitches always.”
emotional
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The emotional aspect of the game is perceived as being tied to the fragility of ego, particularly among wealthy players who struggle to cope with the trauma of losing. This suggests that the game's emotional impact may resonate more with those who have a heightened sensitivity to defeat.