SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3

About

SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3 is a single player and multiplayer real-time strategy game with a warfare theme. It was developed by Dorado Games and was released on March 15, 2018. It received mostly positive reviews from players.

Take control of the armed forces of your nation. Become responsible for its military expansion, technological research and economic development. Form alliances and wage total war for global dominance on the battlefields of World War 3.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

+14

Skip User Reviews

73%

Audience ScoreBased on 2,953 reviews

gameplay35 positive mentions

monetization20 negative mentions

Engaging and complex gameplay that requires strategic thinking and planning.
Offers a variety of nations and units, allowing for diverse strategies and tactics.
Free to play with the option to earn in-game currency through gameplay.

Heavily pay-to-win mechanics that give significant advantages to players who spend money.
Real-time gameplay can lead to long wait times for actions, making it tedious for some players.
Frequent server issues and bugs that disrupt gameplay and user experience.

gameplay
130 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
27%
65%
8%
The gameplay of the game is characterized by its deep strategic mechanics and real-time decision-making, offering a rewarding experience for dedicated players. However, many users express frustration with the pay-to-win elements that disrupt balance, as well as slow progression that can lead to tedious gameplay. While the game has a solid core and engaging mechanics, issues like server performance and unfair advantages for paying players detract from the overall enjoyment.
- “Deep strategic gameplay: the game offers complex planning and decision-making.”
- “An engaging strategy game, Conflict of Nations: World War 3 outpaces rivals with its impressive geopolitical dynamics and immersive gameplay.”
- “The gameplay is challenging and complex, but with the right amount of dedication, players can achieve victory.”
- “I try again for a second game because I wasn't giving it a chance, and that too had a gold user but he was some weird nationalist who spammed nothing but tanks. Thanks to the crappy battle mechanics, tanks can't be countered even by vehicles meant to counter them because the HP difference is so wide. You get one shot off and instantly die because tanks have 100 HP and deal 8 damage with 50% bonuses on the most common terrain types, while you have 28 HP and deal 12 damage unless you aren't in a city.”
- “Imagine a bland 4x/grand strategy game but add in having to wait hours just for units to move and literal days for stuff to build and train, and complete pay-to-win mechanics like being able to heal troops, make them train faster, and buy materials. It's an unbalanced pile of utter garbage, a complete waste of time.”
- “The game has a high potential but is ruined by unfair game mechanics and severe pay-to-win elements. You could play this game for 2 years in real life and only get 10 hours of actual gameplay.”
graphics
48 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
15%
75%
10%
The graphics of the game receive mixed reviews, with many users describing them as dated, unappealing, and lacking detail, particularly in comparison to the mobile version. While some appreciate the clean and modern visuals, others find them confusing and poorly optimized, detracting from the overall gameplay experience. Overall, there is a consensus that the graphics could benefit from significant improvements to enhance engagement and clarity.
- “Clean visuals: the graphics are modern and intuitive.”
- “The detailed maps and solid graphics enhance the tactical feel, though the grind for resources can sometimes be a bit much.”
- “Realistic landscapes and geographical features would make the gameplay experience feel even more engaging.”
- “Graphics are dated.”
- “Unstreamlined and poor graphics.”
- “You should absolutely play this... if you like buggy games with unappealing graphics that love lagging and buffering.”
monetization
39 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
8%
41%
51%
The monetization in this game has been widely criticized as aggressive and exploitative, with many players labeling it a "cash grab" due to the prevalence of microtransactions and intrusive ads. Users express frustration over the pay-to-win mechanics and the constant bombardment of advertisements, which detracts from the overall gameplay experience. While some acknowledge the game's potential, they feel that the monetization strategy undermines its enjoyment and fairness.
- “If you're a fan of political and military strategy and can tolerate (or afford) the monetization, the game is still worth trying.”
- “Its monetization system is based on helping players win the game.”
- “I wish there was a neutral option because I don't hate this game but it wants money at every single turn -- the second you start spending microtransactions in this game it loses the point of being a battle royale.”
- “All of their recent updates were specifically made with only monetization in mind, and said units are unfair in regular gameplay.”
- “This game's monetization is worse than the average gacha game and I would advise everyone to steer clear.”
- “Conflict of Nations: World War 3 is a pay-to-win mobile app/browser game that's been dumped on Steam as a nasty, greedy cash grab from morally void mobile app developers.”
story
31 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
3%
62%
35%
The reviews overwhelmingly indicate that the game lacks a coherent story, with many users explicitly stating "no story" or expressing frustration over the absence of narrative elements. A few comments suggest that while there are gameplay mechanics involving missions and battles, they do not contribute to a meaningful or engaging storyline. Overall, players seem to find the storytelling aspect nonexistent or severely lacking.
- “From infiltration missions deep behind enemy lines, to the mobilization of entire fleets, you control every aspect of the battlefield.”
- “There is no story or real progress. I didn't make an hour in this game and I don't leave reviews that often.”
- “Morals of the story: 1) Do not be stupid enough to believe they have any way of assuring one person is not playing 15 countries; 2) One undefeatable unit will come along and wipe out your 100 units like a hot knife through butter; 3) Players will accuse you of cheating if you buy in (yes, it is pay to play) but feel it is not cheating to have 10 friends along with no intention of attacking one another after claiming the 10 biggest and baddest countries to start.”
- “☑ no story”
grinding
21 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
5%
43%
52%
Overall, players find the grinding aspect of the game to be excessively tedious and time-consuming, often detracting from the initial enjoyment. Many reviews highlight that resource management feels more like a chore than a strategic element, with some suggesting that the game becomes increasingly unenjoyable the longer you play. Additionally, the integration with other platforms adds to the frustration, making the grinding experience feel even more burdensome.
- “You'll need a second life for grinding.”
- “Game seems promising on the surface, but quickly devolves into a tedious grind.”
- “Edit: played a bit more and I can say without a doubt that the more you play, the worse the game becomes. The best strategy to not immediately lose is to leave it open in the background, and even then it's still tedious. I don't recommend this game to anyone; it's a waste of time.”
- “The second issue is speed; it can take hours to send units from one place to another, and it just gets too tedious waiting.”
stability
14 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The stability of the game has been widely criticized, with users reporting numerous glitches, frequent server disconnections, and issues with the linking system. While some players appreciate the game's concept and improvements, the persistent bugs and performance problems significantly detract from the overall experience. Many users express frustration over the game's unreliability, often requiring multiple restarts to function properly.
- “There are many glitches and downtime lately.”
- “Constantly losing connection to the server and the game is generally very buggy.”
- “Opens to a black screen and freezes.”
optimization
7 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
43%
14%
43%
The game's optimization has received significant criticism, particularly for the PC version, which suffers from lag, poor graphics, and an inadequate zoom function. Users note that while the mobile version is better optimized, the PC experience is marred by performance issues and a cluttered user interface, leading to an overall negative impression of its technical execution.
- “The PC version could benefit from better optimization with a graphics update to better distinguish each individual territory and improve the zoom function, as it currently doesn't zoom in close enough.”
- “The UI is a mess; you can choose between old and outdated or new and unoptimized.”
- “The game is too laggy on PC, and the zoom in and out isn't smooth at all; it needs more optimizations.”
- “PC version could also be better optimized with a graphics update to better distinguish each individual territory and also could do with a better zoom function as it simply doesn't zoom close enough.”
- “Too laggy on PC and zoom in and out isn't smooth at all, needs more optimizations.”
- “The UI is a mess; you can choose between old and outdated, or new and unoptimized.”
humor
6 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The humor in the game is derived from the chaotic and often absurd interactions between players, particularly the amusing tactics of inexperienced players who charge blindly into battles. Many users find entertainment in the unexpected outcomes of these encounters, while others appreciate the comedic potential of strategic gameplay, even if some aspects feel less humorous or overly serious. Overall, the game's humor is a mix of lighthearted banter and the unpredictability of player behavior.
- “I enjoy the funny interactions.”
- “It's very funny you choose a nation and start war; you can do it in 4 speed too!”
- “Simply pay to win, but if you end up in a game where no one pays for it, it can be very funny and entertaining.”
emotional
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players express a mix of intense emotions regarding the game, highlighting feelings of heartbreak and frustration due to the loss of hard-earned progress, as well as the emotional toll of its pay-to-win mechanics. The game elicits strong reactions, ranging from sadness to feelings of unfairness, suggesting a complex emotional landscape that resonates deeply with users.
- “This made me cry, but in a good way.”
- “It's quite heartbreaking to see all your months of hard work just disappear when this dude shows up.”
replayability
4 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
75%
75%
The game is highly praised for its replayability, with users noting its simplicity, diverse gamemodes, and overall fun factor that encourages repeated play. Many consider it to have infinite replayability, making it an engaging experience time and again.
- “It's simple enough to get into, endlessly replayable, and the variety of game modes are excellent.”
- “Super fun and replayable.”
- “Infinite replayability material.”
- “Once you've completed the game, there's little incentive to go back. The lack of meaningful choices makes replaying feel pointless.”
- “The game offers a linear experience with no real variations in gameplay, which severely limits its replayability.”
- “After finishing the main story, I found that there were no new challenges or content to explore, making it hard to justify a second playthrough.”
music
1 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The music in the game is generally appreciated, with users noting that it enhances the overall experience alongside good graphics and improved army units compared to "Call of War." However, there is a sentiment that the game would benefit from incorporating previous diplomacy rules to boost its popularity.

Skip Game Offers

Buy SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3

SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3
See offer on Steam

245h Median play time

223h Average play time

18-300h Spent by most gamers

*Based on 6 analyzed playthroughs

Skip Videos

Videos

Skip Games Like SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3

74%10kreviews

Call of War

2017

Casual Strategy

69%1.2kreviews

Supremacy 1914

2019

Casual Strategy

68%6.3kreviews

Supremacy 1914 - World War 1

Strategy

79%2.2kreviews

Iron Order 1919

2022

Casual Strategy

57%4.3kreviews

Stronghold Kingdoms

2012

Open World Role Playing

More games like SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3

Skip FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions

SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3 is a real-time strategy game with warfare theme.

SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3 is available on PC, Mac OS and Windows.

On average players spend around 223 hours playing SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3.

SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3 was released on March 15, 2018.

SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3 was developed by Dorado Games.

SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3 has received mostly positive reviews from players. Most players liked this game for its gameplay but disliked it for its monetization.

SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3 is a single player game with multiplayer and local co-op support.

Similar games include Call of War, Supremacy 1914, Supremacy 1914 - World War 1, Iron Order 1919, Stronghold Kingdoms and others.

SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3

Platforms

About

Buy SUPREMACY: WORLD WAR 3