User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 24 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 24
  2. Negative: 5 out of 24

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 4, 2011
    This is the kind of game you want to give a 10 upon first firing it up just for the sheer scope, depth and ambition of it. Too bad that in the end most of the enjoyment comes from figuring out how everything works instead of actually playing it.

    It just never adds up as a game for me. As a simulation it fails, as the subject matter in these seems too broad to really handle with any kind
    of realism, not to mention that the political aspect is very undernourished, and the AI never manages to convince you that you're up against any kind of intelligence. As a grand strategy game it doesn't work either, as the game seems more like a wargame with a grab bag of features the developers thought would be cool without really thinking how they all fit together. It fails as pure visceral entertainment as well, as any tense moments easily get drowned in the plodding pace of the game and sheer complexity, and the poor graphics and interface don't do it any favors here either.

    All of these complaints apply to the other titles in the series as well, which is pretty disappointing as even the first game seemed to have a ton of unrealized potential. Too bad the devs have never really addressed the core gameplay and accessibility issues of the series, instead choosing to devote their time with small fixes as well mapping the geography and military of the world to an astounding degree. They bill this as an "Intelligent Strategy Game", but "obsessive" seems to fit the bill much better.

    Despite all I've said though this isn't a terrible game, just more wasted potential, and there are better games out there. For a historical grand strategy game I'd rather play the Europa Universalis series, and both Dominions and Distant Worlds have a similarly grand degree of complexity yet remain more accessible, cohesive, and enjoyable. I imagine that anyone that really likes the combat aspect of this here would be better suited with a traditional wargame as well.

    I think Battlegoat needs to go back to the drawing board with this, trim a lot of the fat and just focus on making a cohesive game for once. I appreciate the ambition, but if after five years and two sequels your concept still isn't hitting the mark there's a problem. Complexity alone just doesn't cut it.
  2. Jul 20, 2011
    A detailed and sophisticated strategy game - you won't master this in a day (or a week or a month...) but it should offer huge replayability, between the campaigns (play as US or USSR), the Sandbox (play as one of about 200 regions), or Scenarios (shorter games with specific objectives). It will take about an hour to get used to the interface and the controls/options, and there is a good manual and some good "walkthrough" guides. After that it is about trying to master the control you are given versus what you can get your ministers to do for you, etc etc.

    Warfare can get a bit cluttered at times, but this is in part to the much improved game speed versus earlier titles in the series - when things get hot you should 'slow down' to the lower speed levels, so that you can properly manage your units. At the fast speed, let the AI take care of it and just watch the fun.
  3. Jul 22, 2011
    This game can get a bit scary at first because so much is going on at once, but then when you slow the game speed down a bit you can really get to appreciate the detail and the vast number of choices you get when you play Supreme Ruler ColdWar. I like the military battles side myself, so the improvements over the older Supreme Ruler games with better naval transport, and the option to fight wars as a "proxy" instead of declaring war on everybody, are very big features.

    The Espionage side is a bit boring, but the tech tree is improved and easier to understand, and ties in better with the rest of the game. Diplomacy has some cool new options, and a lot of the other regions (controlled by the AI) seem to have lots of things of their own going on. I'm actually preferring the Sandbox to the Campaign game, but that may change - lots of gameplay and replay value in this game.
  4. Jul 31, 2011
    Not quite as difficult as you would think, but definitely a big game. The hardest part is finding any sort of manual or help file (assuming you downloaded it from Steam or other source). The interface is okay, but as far as presenting data efficiently, I believe this game fails. The financials are a classic example as you may see a daily deficit, but for some reason your treasury keeps growing. As it turns out, this has to do with trade and other items, but from the interface this is not immediately apparent. Your political leaning (ie. Conservative, Moderate etc.) has little to do with how you govern. Even if you're a free-market conservative, you're still ultimately controlling directly or indirectly (via ministers) all of the country's production and trade. If you can pick this game up for a download somewhere below $10.00, I'd say go ahead and buy, but otherwise, I'd suggest buying Capitalism II and mix it up with some Civ 5. Expand
  5. Aug 1, 2011
    I'd actually like to give this game a 9.5, but that's not possible, so I'll round up... There is a huge amount of greatness in this game - depth, a good user interface, lots of strategy, politics, replayability, tactical battles, strategic planning, and even global nuclear war!

    Yes, there are some weaknesses - a big learning curve, dated graphics, so-so sound... on the other hand there
    is a huge map, battles with as many units as you can desire, a very detailed combat system that includes supply, indirect fire, terrain, line of sight, and much more. And the economic/resource model is great too... maybe not enough difference between communist and capitalist economies, but the fun is in cornering the market for finished goods, or invading an oil producing country to resolve that pesky shortage!

    I've been playing it for a week now and can't wait to dive in and try something new the next time. There is a LOT here for your money.
  6. Aug 3, 2011
    Very interesting type of game, but don't expect a polished high-end product. In campaign mode, you play as the USA or the USSR. It feels authentic and the developers have spent a huge amount of attention to detail. All the strategic and tactical decisions you might expect are yours to take - this is a game grand in scope, complex and realistic. I'm a big fan of that type of ambition in a developer. (In sandbox mode you can play as any nation starting in 1949, I was amused to see that they've even gotten the geography and infrastructure of Sweden roughly correct.)
    However, beware that this feels very much like an Indie game. It runs a bit slowly. The AI seems so-so, it's not that proactive. The user interface is absolutely awful, no real excuse for that in a commercial product. Military unit models are somewhat detailed, but basically look like animated stacks of units from Civ 4. It takes a long time to play: after a while, even on the highest game speed setting, it felt like watching paint dry.
    Buy this game if you are new to this genre, if you're interested in the meta-game of the cold war. But bear in mind that this game has many shortcomings in terms of playability, game speed, graphical quality and variety. Given more funding and a larger development studio, this game would have been truly epic. Realistic, complex and detalied. But as it stands - mediocre.
  7. Aug 16, 2011
    The lights are on, but nobody is home. This game appears fantastic, until you play for a few hours, and realize what is missing. An accurate manual, a decent AI, and any sense of challenge, let alone realism.

    The manual is not only woefully light on detail, it refers to features that the developers admit didn't make it into the game, as well as having a lot of obvious mistakes on those
    features that did make the cut.

    The AI creates a mass of units, then uses them spareingly, if at all - even for self defense. It often seems to ignore air units totally. The AI cannot build new building complexes like the player can, only add to old ones. The game is exceedingly slow, even on relatively fast systems. Every game starts with the French declaring war on North Vietnam, and then the whole of NATO decides to pile into Southeast Asia too. If, playing as the USA, you help to defend South Korea after they are invaded, the UN will hate you (not join in, as in real life), and bizarrely, the South Koreans will hate you too. Oh, and the Suez crisis of 1956 will never happen - Egypt owns the canal in 1956.

    This game is either woefully unfinished, or just terrible. Buy at your own risk.
  8. Sep 12, 2011
    Perseverance pays. If you have the patience to explore the interface and watch one of the Let's Play SR Cold War videos on You Tube, then you'll find where this game excels - in its scope and sheer depth. The more time you invest the game, the more rewarding its becomes.

    This game is clearly rich in detail, but the beauty is where you can lock out ministers and allow the AI to do what
    you don't want to. Don't feel you have to do everything - its not possible and isn't fun that way. Instead, focus on the arms race or the space race or domestic advancement. It's really a sandbox experience and up to you to decide how what you want to achieve from it.

    In conclusion, if you're a fan of strategy games published by Paradox Interactive and Matrix, this is certainly a worthy addition.
  9. Mar 7, 2012
    Almost a year in and its still plagued by slow downs that make any extended campaign turn into a crawl. UI is worse than its predecessor in some ways and it generally feels like its waiting on an expansion to bring the full features you would expect. If you're the patient sort of lad then wait a fair while for an expansion and pick it up cheap.
  10. May 9, 2013
    I guess this is a "love it or leave it" type of game. Personally i love it. I can say without a doubt that, next to Age of Empires 2 and Star Craft it is in my top 5 most addictive games ever played. I will agree that this game is not for everyone. Not even most RTS-ists will enjoy the brute force of this game, but for those who like it, it's pure beauty. Personally i didn't even play scenarios, i just play sandbox like crazy with everything on hard. Making my own alliances and choosing my future enemies way ahead of them even noticing me. As a small country in east Europe, with literally no production, negative income, no army, and huge thread from USSR(or allied forces like UK and France) i became #1 exporter of weapons in the world, arming both US and USSR. It took a month of 4h/day to get here. But the feeling you get is just indescribable, when you are arming a (previously) much feared enemy with weapons you have already replaced 10-15 years ago. When your weapons and social developments are so far beyond what everyone else has, and using your influence(via goods or financial aid, military aid or direct support as neutral country) to decide the fate of conflicts that you aren't directly part of. I guess it's that God complex kicking in. :D The game could use some more depth, but just as it is, it's awesome! Expand
  11. Jul 22, 2013
    This is one of the better RTS games I've played, although with me being a strategy game nut I can't really overlook the swarm of bugs in this game.
    Although it's got massive replay value, it's really a one trick pony.

    From my 90+ hours of playing it, every game ends up nearly the same. Nothing new happens unless you directly cause it. The AI is buggy at times but generally stable
    enough to overlook. The economic aspect of the game is genuinely one of the more solid features in the game. If the developers added more random events and made the game not play out the same way every single time, I'm sure it'd be a much better game.

    Although it's not a bad game, it's not a good game if the developers had corrected the issues that plague It would be a far better game. So overall, the AI does the same thing every time, it's got it's priorities in the wrong places. For example, if I invade china it'll still keep most of it's army idle by it's capital instead of pushing me out.

    The game doesn't really have a good diplomatic system, but it isn't bad really. The AI makes terrible choices, like not accepting a peace agreement when you've occupied their whole nation pretty much and getting annexed instead.

    The moral of this, it's not a really good game and I'd avoid it unless you're a large fan of grand scale strategy games.

Mixed or average reviews - based on 12 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 12
  2. Negative: 0 out of 12
  1. Oct 8, 2011
    Some nice touches, but lethargic AI, performance issues, and personality - deficient premiers make the ruling gruelling. [Nov 2011, p.120]
  2. Sep 18, 2011
    Supreme Ruler: Cold War can quickly become a chore, despite the amount of detail that went into this game.
  3. Sep 6, 2011
    A deep and profound strategic title wich fails to deliver, mainly due to a lame user interface, lack of tutorial, questionable AI, bad graphics and boring moments. The multiplayer fails to save it. It's definitely better to look elsewhere into the Paradox portfolio with better, more refined, titles as Hearts of Iron or Europa Universalis.