Visual Assets
8 screenshotsStore Profile
Identity
- Publisher
- Supercell Oy
- iOS app ID
- 1053012308
Market Signals
- US top grossing
- 92
Loading lower dossier sections.

| iOS app ID | 1053012308 |
|---|---|
| ios bundle id | com.supercell.scroll |
| ios title | Clash Royale |
| Publisher | Supercell Oy |
| downloads bucket | 500M+ |
| store category | Strategy |
| content rating | 9+ |
| ios version | v15.535.3 |
| ios current version release date | 2026-05-26 |
| ios rating average | 4.6 |
| ios rating count | 3796567 |
| ios price | 0 |
| ios size mb | 992.6 |
| US top grossing | 92 |
| ios us top grossing rank | 42 |
Loading lower dossier sections.
No exact-game UA creatives found.
Clash Royale’s loop is a short competitive duel circuit: build a deck, spend elixir to deploy cards in real time, pressure or defend towers, receive a win/loss result, then use rewards and learning to revise the deck and queue again.
The key uncertainty is how much of the appeal comes from real-time tactical mastery versus collection, progression, and post-match deck correction, because the evidence markets both battlefield action and deck-building outcomes.
Clash Royale shows strong real depth because deck construction, elixir timing, lane pressure, counters, tower health, and opponent adaptation create many non-redundant states under time pressure. Its risk is not shallow breadth but depth accessibility, especially whether players understand why they lost.
15 of 15 responses include lens metadata.

The reaction is positive because social clarity and recognizable competitive play fit, with less pull for immersive exploration.
I would download it because it is easy to understand why people still talk about it: quick battles, recognizable characters, and a clear competitive hook. It looks like the kind of game I could explain to a friend in one sentence and then compare decks or wins later. I am less excited about it as a world to get lost in, because the appeal seems more match-based than immersive. The landscape screenshots make it look like a game that wants full attention in bursts, which is fine if the matches stay short.
The reaction is positive because social clarity and recognizable competitive play fit, with less pull for immersive exploration.I like that the game looks easy to explain and compare with friends.
I am less drawn to it because it does not look especially immersive or story-driven.
The landscape battle presentation makes the match feel like a focused burst of attention.
I would install it for commute-length matches, because it looks like I can jump into a battle, make a few decisions, and be done fast. The main appeal is that the goal seems obvious without needing a long tutorial: defend, place cards, and push back. My worry is that all the cards, chests, upgrades, and events could turn into too many menus when I only want a quick break. The landscape battle images look readable, but the surrounding progression screens make me wonder how much tapping around happens between matches.
The reaction is moderately positive because short match pacing fits, while menu load and progression friction could hurt brief sessions.I like that the core battle looks fast enough for a short break.
I worry that progression screens and upgrades might slow down the quick-session appeal.
The battle view looks clear, but the surrounding systems look busier than I prefer.
I would download it because the match format looks like it rewards timing, deck choices, and actually outplaying someone. The short PvP setup is appealing if wins feel earned instead of just coming from whoever upgraded harder. I am definitely suspicious of the free-to-play economy, since card levels and passes can make competition feel uneven if they matter too much. The battlefield screenshots look clean enough to track lanes and units, but the broader progression looks like it could become a grind.
The reaction is strong but conditional because competitive depth fits well, while fairness and grind are key concerns.I like that the game looks like it has real timing and deck mastery.
I dislike the possibility that upgrades could matter more than skill.
The lane-based battle view looks readable enough for competitive decisions.
I would probably only download it if friends were already playing, because it looks more intense than cozy. I do like collecting characters and seeing colorful little units, and the bright art makes the game feel lively rather than dull. What worries me is that the whole loop seems built around pressure, competition, and upgrades instead of a relaxing place to come back to. The battle scenes look polished, but they also look busy enough that I would not choose this when I just want to unwind.
The reaction leans hesitant because collection appeal and polish are present, but the competitive loop conflicts with a lower-pressure play preference.I like the colorful characters and the sense of collecting new units.
I do not like that the game seems centered on competitive pressure and upgrades.
The art is lively, but the battle scenes look too busy for a relaxing session.
I would download it, mostly because the arena tactics look easy to understand but still deep enough to mess around with. The card-and-tower setup gives me that quick strategy hook where I can chase new units and try odd combinations without committing to a huge story game. I would be a little wary of the free-to-play side, because a game this established usually has a lot of upgrade pressure around the fun parts. The store images look bright and readable, with the battlefield and character cards clear enough that I can tell what kind of match I am getting into.
The reaction is positive because the game offers quick tactical experimentation and clear visual framing, with some caution around upgrade-driven spending.I like that the matches look quick, tactical, and easy to read at a glance.
I am cautious about whether new cards and upgrades would push me toward spending.
The arena and card layout look clear enough that I understand the basic play loop quickly.

The reaction is mixed because polish and strategic depth appeal, while recurring monetization and busy systems reduce trust.
I would hesitate to download it because the free-to-play model makes me wonder how clean the value is. The strategy looks polished, and I can see the appeal of learning decks and outsmarting another player in a short match. Still, I prefer games where I can make one clear purchase and stop thinking about currencies, passes, or upgrade pressure. The store visuals look high quality, but the amount of card and reward activity suggests it may be noisier than I like.
The reaction is mixed because polish and strategic depth appeal, while recurring monetization and busy systems reduce trust.I like the polished strategy and the possibility of smart deck decisions.
I dislike not knowing how much ongoing spending matters to progress.
The visuals look professional, but the card and reward activity feels noisy.
I would download it to test the strategy, because the lane battles and card timing look like there are real choices without becoming a full management sim. I like that a match seems to ask for planning, reactions, and resource tradeoffs in a compact session. My worry is that the surrounding progression could turn meaningful decisions into upgrade chasing, especially if spending speeds things up too much. The screenshots show a polished arena with clear lanes, which makes the strategy feel approachable rather than buried in spreadsheets.
The reaction is positive because compact strategic choices fit strongly, tempered by concern about progression and spending pressure.I like that the battles appear to have meaningful tactical choices in a short format.
I worry that upgrades and spending could flatten the strategy over time.
The clear lanes and polished arena make the tactical play look approachable.
I would probably try it, but only because the matches look short enough to fit between work and family interruptions. The appeal is getting a quick win or loss without needing to remember a long quest line. I would worry about the free-to-play side if stronger cards or paid progress make it hard to keep up casually. The bright characters and clear arena make it look approachable, but the competitive pressure might be more than I want on a busy day.
The reaction is cautiously positive because short sessions fit, while competitive pressure and payment concerns could limit retention.I like that the match length looks manageable for a busy schedule.
I worry that casual play could fall behind paid or heavy players.
The visuals are bright and approachable, but the battles look fairly intense.
I would likely skip it for my regular routine, even though I can see why people enjoy it. I usually want a calmer daily challenge, and this looks more like constant live competition than a relaxing puzzle to settle into. The upgrade and reward systems also look like they could ask for more attention than I want from a phone game. The arena itself is readable, but the surrounding cards, troops, and progression make it feel busier than my ideal evening game.
The reaction is negative because the live competitive loop and busy progression conflict with a calm daily puzzle habit.I like that the arena itself seems understandable and strategic.
I dislike that the overall experience looks competitive, busy, and attention-heavy.
The match screen is readable, but the game around it looks crowded for my routine.
I would download it because the head-to-head strategy looks fun and easy to compare with other people. I like games where I can make a few smart choices, win a short match, and feel like I outplayed someone without sitting down for an hour. My concern is value: I would rather pay once for a complete competitive game than feel nudged into upgrades to keep up. The battle view looks bright and clear, and the card layout makes the choices look more readable than a twitchy action game.
The reaction is positive because quick social competition and strategic decisions fit, with payment fairness as the main concern.I like the quick competitive strategy and easy comparison with other players.
I am concerned that purchases could affect fairness over time.
The battlefield and card choices look readable enough to follow without reflex controls.

The reaction is mildly positive because simple tactical planning appeals, while speed, clutter, and recurring pressure limit confidence.
I might try it because the basic idea of placing units and planning a defense sounds interesting. I like light strategy when I can understand the choices and improve slowly, and the lanes in the battle view make the objective fairly clear. I would be cautious about daily rewards, upgrades, and passes because I do not want a game that pressures me to keep up. The colorful battlefield is readable, but the amount happening at once may be more stressful than I prefer.
The reaction is mildly positive because simple tactical planning appeals, while speed, clutter, and recurring pressure limit confidence.I like that the lanes and unit placement suggest understandable planning.
I dislike the possibility of daily pressure and upgrade chasing.
The battlefield is colorful and clear, but there is a lot happening at once.
I would skip this for my daily game because it does not look relaxing enough. I usually want a clear puzzle or level that I can think through at my own pace, and this seems more like a quick contest with pressure from another player. The large arena helps me understand where the action is, but the moving troops and card choices look like a lot to manage. I also prefer games where I can pay once or play calmly without being pulled into constant progression.
The reaction is negative because the competitive pacing and ongoing progression do not match a calm daily puzzle routine.I like that the central arena gives the action a clear place to happen.
I dislike the pressure of live battles and constant progression.
The arena is easy to spot, but the moving pieces and cards look stressful.
I would be unlikely to download it because it does not look like the kind of card or board game I enjoy. I like clear turns, familiar rules, and time to consider my next move, while this appears to be a live battle with cards used very quickly. I can see that the lanes and towers give it a board-like structure, which helps a little. Still, the fast pace, landscape grip, and free-to-play progression make me think it would be more work than fun for me.
The reaction is negative because familiar card structure is present only superficially, while speed and progression conflict with preferred play.I like that the towers and lanes give the game a clear structure.
I dislike that the card play appears fast, competitive, and tied to progression.
The layout has board-like clarity, but it does not look comfortable for slow one-thumb play.
I would probably skip it because it looks too active for the way I like to play on a tablet. I want large, calm controls and time to think, and this seems built around fast reactions against another person. I do appreciate that the arena has strong colors and the main play area is easy to see. Still, the small cards and quick unit movement make me think it would feel tense instead of pleasant to sit with.
The reaction is negative because tablet comfort, pacing, and touch readability are poor fits despite clear color contrast.I like that the playfield has strong color contrast and a clear central arena.
I dislike the fast reactions and smaller card interactions.
The screen looks bright, but the card area and moving units seem too busy for comfort.
I would probably not download it unless someone I trust recommended it, because free competitive games make me cautious. I do not mind paying for a peaceful game, but I dislike feeling pushed by upgrades, timers, or unclear offers. The game looks polished and the main battle area is bright, so it does not feel cheaply made. My concern is that the whole presentation suggests a lot of rewards and competition, which is not the quiet experience I usually want.
The reaction is cautious to negative because trust and peaceful value matter more than competitive polish.I like that the game looks polished and established rather than cheaply made.
I dislike the chance of pressure from upgrades, offers, or competitive progress.
The bright arena looks professional, but the reward-heavy presentation feels too busy.