I really wish there was a neutral review option. This isn't a terrible game, but 20 years after the release of the original, they still haven't come close to making anything as good as SH1/Crusader, and sadly this one, even though it's a better effort than most of their previous titles, doesn't change that.

I really don't care too much about graphics in RTS games. This one looks like a decade old game and that's fine with me, however, it also runs very poorly on a good PC, so when there's not many units on screen and it's not pushing the envelope in terms of graphics, it's a mystery why it runs so incredibly poorly.

In terms of gameplay it's fairly similar to the Strongholds before it, but with the introduction of the Warlords mechanic. These are small forts between you and your rival that you can conquer to get aid like extra troops or resource deliveries. It sounds interesting but in practice it kind of ruins what makes Stronghold different from other RTS games. Castle building is an afterthought now. Most of the fighting occurs around the warlord estates, so building armies is far more important than a well built castle.

You can also capture them diplomatically, which again is a feature that sounds great, then quickly falls apart in practice. Recruiting warlords just consists of spending more diplomacy points than your rivals, so instead of an interesting mechanic, it's just looking at a window and clicking to make numbers go up. and hoping your opponent does it less.

Another weird change in base construction is that you can no longer build anything outside your estate, including resource buildings and farms, so there's no reason to fight over territory, except for the warlord estates. It really removes a lot of what made Crusader fun, fighting over limited farmland. I don't understand the logic behind it at all, other than forcing you to rely on warlords.

Finally the campaign. It's there. It's a bunch of random missions with some semblance of a story connecting them. Most of them are pretty forgettable, and some of the sieges are a bit tedious on the highest difficulties where the best strategy is using the fire at area feature of archers and catapults to safely but extremely inaccurately kill your enemies from outside their range of fire. For what it's worth the original Stronghold had the same issue, but it's unfortunate that two decades later they still haven't improved it.

Overall it's a decent game plagued by performance issues and some weird game mechanics, but it's also the least focused on castle-building in a series that's defined by it. It's really hard to recommend when the originals are also on Steam if you want a castle building experience, and there are plenty of better options like the Age of Empires series if you want a more straightforward RTS.

I really wish there was a neutral review option. This isn't a terrible game, but 20 years after the release of the original, they still haven't come close to making anything as good as SH1/Crusader, and sadly this one, even though it's a better effort than most of their previous titles, doesn't change that. I really don't care too much about graphics in RTS games. This one looks like a decade old game and that's fine with me, however, it also runs very poorly on a good PC, so when there's not many units on screen and it's not pushing the envelope in terms of graphics, it's a mystery why it runs so incredibly poorly. In terms of gameplay it's fairly similar to the Strongholds before it, but with the introduction of the Warlords mechanic. These are small forts between you and your rival that you can conquer to get aid like extra troops or resource deliveries. It sounds interesting but in practice it kind of ruins what makes Stronghold different from other RTS games. Castle building is an afterthought now. Most of the fighting occurs around the warlord estates, so building armies is far more important than a well built castle. You can also capture them diplomatically, which again is a feature that sounds great, then quickly falls apart in practice. Recruiting warlords just consists of spending more diplomacy points than your rivals, so instead of an interesting mechanic, it's just looking at a window and clicking to make numbers go up. and hoping your opponent does it less. Another weird change in base construction is that you can no longer build anything outside your estate, including resource buildings and farms, so there's no reason to fight over territory, except for the warlord estates. It really removes a lot of what made Crusader fun, fighting over limited farmland. I don't understand the logic behind it at all, other than forcing you to rely on warlords. Finally the campaign. It's there. It's a bunch of random missions with some semblance of a story connecting them. Most of them are pretty forgettable, and some of the sieges are a bit tedious on the highest difficulties where the best strategy is using the fire at area feature of archers and catapults to safely but extremely inaccurately kill your enemies from outside their range of fire. For what it's worth the original Stronghold had the same issue, but it's unfortunate that two decades later they still haven't improved it. Overall it's a decent game plagued by performance issues and some weird game mechanics, but it's also the least focused on castle-building in a series that's defined by it. It's really hard to recommend when the originals are also on Steam if you want a castle building experience, and there are plenty of better options like the Age of Empires series if you want a more straightforward RTS.