Siegecraft Commander wants to be two games at once. On one side, it offers a real-time strategy campaign built around building a fortress and sending waves of soldiers into battle. On the other, it splits into turn-based skirmishes where you lay out towers and walls before the fighting starts. The problem is that neither mode gets enough room to breathe.
Blowfish Studios built Siegecraft Commander as a strategy game for PS4, PC, SteamVR, Mac and Xbox One. Level 77 Pty Ltd published it. The game asks players to balance planning with action, switching between careful tower placement and fast, chaotic combat. That split ambition shows through in nearly everything about it.
Trailer, via BlowfishStudiosGames.
The Fortress Campaign
The campaign runs as a single-player RTS, and it is the mode that holds the game together. Players build walls, towers and barracks, then send troops out to fight enemy forces. The pacing swings between phases of construction and phases of fighting, and the game manages to keep both moving without letting either drag.
What works best here is the sense of scale. Building a full fortress takes real time, and watching it grow from a few stone foundations into a walled compound feels satisfying. The game rewards patience, since a well-built layout can survive attacks that a rushed one would collapse under. Once the fighting starts, the camera pulls back for a bird’s-eye view, giving players a clear picture of how their forces hold up against the enemy.
The campaign also includes fantasy and historical themes, which means battles can range from castle sieges to battles fought with strange machines. This mix gives the campaign some variety, even if the core loop remains the same throughout.
Turn-Based Skirmishes
The turn-based skirmishes are where Siegecraft Commander stumbles. These matches ask players to plan the exact position of every tower and wall before the battle begins, then switch to a real-time view once the fighting starts. The idea is that careful planning pays off later, but the execution often leaves players feeling like they are working against the system rather than with it.
The planning phase is the weaker half of this equation. Players place towers and walls on a grid, choosing where to fortify and where to leave gaps. The game does not offer much guidance on what makes a good layout, so new players end up guessing at the best spots to put their defenses. This guesswork can lead to frustration, especially when an enemy finds a weak spot that was never planned for.
Once the fighting starts, the pace shifts suddenly, and the game expects players to react quickly to threats while remembering the layout they just spent minutes planning. The contrast between the two phases is jarring, and it is hard to feel like one supports the other.
The Multiplayer Modes
Multiplayer adds a layer of competition that the campaign lacks, but it shares the same problems as the skirmish mode. Matches support both turn-based and real-time play, and players can choose which style they want to face off in. The split-screen option is worth noting, since it lets friends play side by side rather than over a network connection.
The modes share a common issue: the game’s systems are not fully joined together. The real-time combat feels separate from the turn-based planning, and players who enjoy one mode may find the other a chore. This split shows up in how matches play out, since a player who excels at quick decision-making may struggle with careful planning, and vice versa.
VR Support
SteamVR support is a notable addition, though it is worth noting that VR is not required to play the game. The VR version lets players step into the battlefield and look around as they build and fight, which can add a layer of presence that the bird’s-eye view on PC and console does not offer. However, the VR implementation is thin compared to what other games in the genre do, and it does not change the fundamental issues with the game’s design.
The VR version also suffers from the same split between planning and action. Players who move between laying out towers and fighting waves of enemies in VR may find the transitions less smooth than they are on a screen, since the physical act of reaching for a controller during a VR session can break the flow of play.
Where the Game Works
Siegecraft Commander succeeds when it commits fully to one mode at a time. The fortress-building campaign is strongest when it lets players focus on construction without rushing them into battle. The turn-based skirmishes are better when they let players plan without worrying about the clock running down.
The game also does well with its fantasy and historical themes. Battles set against strange machines and ancient castles give the campaign a varied look, even if the underlying mechanics stay consistent. The mix of settings helps keep the campaign from feeling like one long repetition of the same mission.
Where the Game Falls Short
The biggest weakness is the split between planning and action. The game asks players to do two very different things well, and it rarely manages to make those two things feel connected. The result is a game that feels unfinished in places, as if parts of it were left behind while other parts were polished too much.
The lack of guidance in the turn-based skirmishes is another problem. New players are left to figure out what makes a good layout through trial and error, which can turn early matches into a frustrating test rather than a fair challenge. The game also does not explain its scoring system well, so players may not understand why one match went badly and another went well.
What the Numbers Show
Judging Siegecraft Commander requires weighing its strengths against its weaknesses. The campaign is solid, the theme is varied, and the multiplayer modes offer replay value. But the split between turn-based planning and real-time action, along with the weak guidance in the skirmishes, drags the whole package down.
Here is how the game breaks down across its main features:
- Fortress campaign — 7 of 10
- Turn-based skirmishes — 6 of 10
- Multiplayer modes — 6 of 10
- VR support — 5 of 10
- Theme and variety — 7 of 10
Taken together, these numbers point to a game that is competent but uneven. It has moments of real quality and moments where the design falls apart, and the two rarely meet in the middle.
Final Word
Siegecraft Commander is a game with a good idea at its core, but one that never quite settles into a shape that suits itself. The fortress campaign is the strongest part of the package, and it carries the game further than the skirmishes do. The turn-based and real-time modes need more work to feel like a single, complete system rather than two separate games sharing a box.
The game is worth playing for players who enjoy building forts and sending armies into battle, but it will frustrate anyone looking for a tightly designed strategy experience. The campaign offers a solid foundation for that kind of play, while the skirmishes remain a mixed bag.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.
