Wot I Think: Eador – Masters of a Broken World

The shards of Eador’s Broken World drift in space, waiting to be conquered by a commander versed in turn-based combat, RPG levelling, questing and looting, and town management. Fortunately, despite my extreme cowardice and feeble frame, I am just such a commander, and after many hours of play, I’ve finally decided wot I think.

Before I begin, it’s important to note that I haven’t played Eador: Genesis so I understand that some people will slap their monitors and howl like basset hounds in a bakery whenever I fail to draw comparisons. I’m fine with that. In fact, I’d encourage you to switch on a webcam first and make recordings of your exasperation. Email them to me. It’s exactly the kind of feedback I appreciate. From what I hear, Broken World is , in many ways, a pretty remake of Genesis. It certainly is pretty, although not without problems.

When I played an early version of the game, I enjoyed the hero management, tactical combat and questing, but found the structure and flow of the campaign about as cohesive as an audiobook of Finnegans Wake read by Bobcat Goldthwait. The good news is, campaigning is much more enjoyable now that the game is complete. The bad news is, I’m going to have a hard time explaining exactly why I found it so off-putting in the first place.

Here’s how it works. The world, as the title says, is broken, separated into shards that are now scattered through space. Following a lengthy and cleverly contorted tutorial, the player is free to choose one of several randomly generated shards to conquer. The terrain, size and number of enemies varies from one to the next, and one of my frustrations stemmed from my supposition that playing through each felt like a standalone scenario. I wasn’t convinced that the connections from one shard to the next made the length of a campaign worthwhile.

I was wrong.

The complexity and number of choices available increase throughout the conquering of each shard, and then again between one and the next. Here’s an example – new building types are unlocked as the materials of a shard are put to use, but rather than simply increasing the player’s power, adding new tiers to construction queues, their availability complicates long-term strategies because the stronghold established at the beginning of each conquest has a limit on each building category. Sometimes, depending on the immediate surroundings and threats, it’s wiser to stick with cheap, fast options that churn out fragile units at a rapid rate, even when more powerful options are available.

That’s not all. The main obstacles on early shards are independent settlements, ruled by various races and often open to bribery rather than requiring battle. When they are controlled by the player, they can be explored, as can the realm containing the capital. As heroes explore, they may discover places of interest, including shops, crypts and monster lairs. Capturing or controlling these isn’t essential but they often contain powerful items and treasure troves, all of which contributes to the war effort.

It’s this side of the game, the exploration and frequent tactical combat, that most resembles a hybrid of a more conventional 4X strategy game, King’s Bounty and one of the stronger entries in the Heroes of Might and Magic series. The combat is good, and as a campaign develops and armies become more mixed, with more units available to select from, devious tactics evolve and factors such as morale play an increasingly important role. Those with a necromantic whiff about them don’t play very well with the more righteous units sprinkled across the shards, but forcing them to fight alongside each other is sometimes the best option. A few unlucky rolls of the dice, as crackling spells and clouds of arrows take their toll, can cause dissent in the ranks. Even the most gifted of splendour-mages isn’t much good if he doesn’t fancy teaming up with a gang of zombies and decides to leg it at the first sign of trouble.

Then there are the heroes. They come in a variety of classes and one is hired to lead the conquest of a new shard, with others available at a steadily increasing price. Armies cannot move around the map without them and their ability to learn spells and equip items makes them formidable, particularly on larger shards, where they have more time to develop. Units level up as well but they can normally be treated as expendable, providing there’s enough money for replacements.

I’ve not even mentioned the random events that crop up in player-owned territories, requiring decisions that can alter income and morality. Yes, morality plays a part as well, tracked by the game and influencing the responses of other masters and the independent races encountered on each shard.

There’s more, I know there is, but I can’t cover it all. Eador is bloody enormous, packed with things to discover and hugely rewarding. It can also be too counterintuitive for its own good, with a building management screen that resembles an astrophysicist’s blackboard a sure contender for least helpful game element of the year. Honestly, I just let out a sort of distressed bellow when I saw it, half laughter, half sob. I haven’t clicked on it again and I never will. I’m getting on just fine without it.

For all the pleasures of combat, it too has problems. Terrain types, which have a significant impact on tactics, aren’t as clear as they could be, and animations are overlong and slow. Clicking speeds them up, but then I occasionally trigger the next movement by mistake and either screw up my plans or become confused by numbers flying out of a goblin’s face for no apparent reason. On top of that, keeping track of stamina, morale and health isn’t as obvious as I’d like, but these are all relatively minor complaints, which become less of an issue as the interface becomes more familiar.

The game was probably released a little early, before sufficient testing had been done, but it hasn’t been shoved into the night and left shivering on the doorstep. Updates are already fixing some of the issues that players have noticed, including the animation speeds. Perhaps I’ve been lucky, but my complaints are to do with cosmetic factors rather than enjoyment-sapping bugs that others have experienced.

Far from being Heroes of Might and Magic with a floaty island gimmick, Eador is a cleverly designed strategy game that may be unfairly overlooked by those who aren’t drawn in by its colourful fantasy style. It presents compelling random scenarios, chained together into a campaign of increasing complexity, and has managed to keep my interest after a couple of lengthy playthroughs. The limited space for construction in the city screen ensures that every decision carries a great deal of weight, rather than being a race to build the best of everything. There’s still some grind, particularly at the beginning and end of a shard, but it’s minimised and there are choices to make throughout rather than, as is too often the case in strategy games, simply resources to gather.

In a just world, Eador would receive plenty of attention and analysis, but the initial couple of hours, while not dull, do seem an awful lot like any other game with swords, sorcery and turn-based conquest. It’s kind of like an onion then, all layered scratchy skin, eye-watering and sharp – keep stripping back the segments though because get deep enough and it turns out the onion is actually a pomegranate, and the red, succulent jewels come spilling out. In short, beneath the layers Eador is an unexpectedly tasty game that is divided into many segments and you should eat it.

Masters of the Broken World is out now, available at GamersGate, Good Old Games and Steam. It costs around £14.99.


  1. CMaster says:

    Well, that was more positive than I expected.

    Which is great. What Snowbird were trying to do with Eador sounded like a great idea, I just really doubted they could deliver. Sounds like they really have made it possible to pursue lots of different paths though.

  2. Bhazor says:

    Rainbows? In a computer game?!?

    The fuck is going on?

    • Captain Joyless says:

      Uh… the simulated diffraction of light through water droplets in the atmosphere?

      That are a covenant not to destroy the world through a flood (again), I suppose.

    • Flappybat says:

      Computer games can have rainbows!

      If they are made out of blood.

      • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

        Sadly it doesn’t happen in the visible spectrum. Too much absorption and scattering of those wavelengths due to the phlogiston content of the humours. However there is a small near-infrared “window” of wavelengths which allow good transmission through blood. This could cause a rainbow effect. A small one. In the near-infrared. If I catch anyone doing this, they’ll be burned as a witch.

    • briangw says:

      Umm, earlier HoMM games had rainbows and leprechauns.

      • tormos says:

        Before Ubisoft ruined the series they were a longstanding unit. And I think the Nature faction could actually build rainbows in 4 because logic .

      • Neurotic says:

        Exactly. Lovely little rainbows they are too.

    • Mr Bismarck says:

      ArmA has rainbows. Military rainbows. The editor has a rainbow intensity setting.

      • Shadowcat says:

        Also settings for “quantity” and “all the way across the sky”.

    • LordMidas says:

      Rainbow Islands had rainbows in it. Lots and lots of shooty rainbows.

      • Samwise Gamgee says:

        Codemasters Rainbow Simulator for the ZX Spectrum had monochrome rainbows

  3. Skhalt says:

    Is it as bastard hard as Eador: Genesis? That game sent me weeping in a corner on the very first shard, on the easiest difficulty setting, four times in a row. My sessions of Dark Souls seem like peaceful strolls in comparison.

    • Captain Joyless says:

      I’m curious about that too.

      Then again, I never really understood how Dark Souls was “hard.” If it had permadeath, it would be hard.

      • lordcooper says:

        Nothing is stopping you from playing as if it is permadeath :)

        • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

          Iron Man mode: When you die, you have to fling yourself from a tall building in real life.

        • Captain Joyless says:

          Don’t be ridiculous; you’re acting as if the game doesn’t have its own internal rules. But the designer(s) made the game a certain way, and it follows the rules they prescribed. The game doesn’t ‘want’ to be played as permadeath, because it returns you to life after you die.

          Sure, I could play it as if it were permadeath, but then it wouldn’t be the same game, because it would have different rules, and we wouldn’t be talking about Dark Souls any more. We’d be talking about a different game. Dark Souls: House Rules.

          Taking your argument to its extreme, no game could ever be criticized: nothing stops anyone from playing any game differently.

          • tormos says:

            playing something with self applied restrictions is playing a different game? This seems a bit of a stretch. For example I commonly play strategy games without abusing cheap tactics because I like a bit of a challenge. Is this a fundamentally different game?

          • Brun says:

            This notion breaks down in games that are open by nature and multiple styles of play are viable. Skyrim is a great example – you can choose specifically not to use particular abilities, whether for challenge or roleplaying (e.g. refusing to use Conjuration spells because your character hates necromancers). That doesn’t make it a different game when played that way because it provides you with the choice to use those abilities or not.

            Basically what you’re trying to say is that there’s no such thing as “metagame”, which is demonstrably false since it is possible to roleplay – itself a type of metagame – in many (some would argue all) games, even those that do not explicitly facilitate it.

          • Captain Joyless says:

            That is not at all what I am trying to say.

            What you fail to realize is that in all of your examples, you are talking about choices within the game. For example, if you decided you wanted to play Dark Souls only unarmed and unarmored, or without leveling up past 10. You can do this – it’s permissible within the game’s rules.

            Making a game “permadeath” is not a choice the game offers you. You have to actively circumvent what the game is trying to present and start it over again. Of course you can roleplay within games – but quitting the game because you died is not a roleplay choice. It’s just quitting the game and starting over.

            This would be like trying to read War and Peace alode, except that if you mispronounced a word you started the book over again. It has nothing to do with what the book is – it’s just some stupid thing you’re doing outside of the game AND the metagame. War and Peace is not that book, and Dark Souls is not that game.

          • JackShandy says:

            Okay, so call it a different game, “Dark Souls: House Rule Edition”. If you think it would be more fun to play that way, why not do it? Just because it’d make it harder to talk about the game on the internet?

          • Zeewolf says:

            I don’t think Dark Souls would be more fun if it was harder, I think it’s great as it is. But it’s true that, for the most part, it isn’t very hard. It has some mean difficulty spikes, like a certain pair of bosses in Anor Londo, but the main game itself isn’t hard unless you equate death with failure. And that is something Dark Souls very consciously does not do.

            Eador: Genesis, on the other hand, IS hard. It’s hard because in that game, failing is easy as there are tons of things that will kill your heroes and ruin your game, and you even have random events to contend with. And there’s no reloading an earlier save, so you’re stuck with whatever happens.

            So, to answer the original question, Eador: MotBW is just as hard as Genesis because you will face the same kind of opposition and difficult situations, but on the other hand it is much easier because you get to save and restore as you please.

      • Grey Poupon says:

        I always found it more grindy than hard. In the sense that WoW is hard if you don’t farm levels/items/whatever.

        • Gula25 says:

          I agree with this, truthfully the hard part comes in when your trying to understand what exactly is the best thing to grind.

      • Harlander says:

        Personally, Dark Souls is hard because I’m a staggering klutz with all the adroitness of a weeble balancing a sledgehammer on one finger.

        This method of difficulty adjustment may not be available to everyone, though.

    • Isair says:

      It felt a little bit easier to me, but I suspect it’s largely because they removed the time travel mechanic, meaning there’s no consequence to save scumming.
      Or maybe I just know what I’m suppossed to be doing this time.

      • lordcooper says:

        Time travel mechanic?

        • Isair says:

          Genesis autosaved everything, but you could move back a turn for a score penalty, or to the start of the scenario at the cost of some magic power. Personally I would’ve liked to see the system improved rather than removed, but I guess they wanted to give players more control over their saves.

          Edit: I should probably stress that this was specifically explained in the game as you having mastered time travel.

          • karry says:

            “Personally I would’ve liked to see the system improved rather than removed”

            In what way ? Personally, i’d rather it didnt have it, or the normal save. After all, the game doesnt end even if you lose a shard or two or ten, you can either retry capturing it, or get the benefits after defeating the immortal, or even just go on regardless.

      • Skhalt says:

        i’m not sure I understand what you mean, you can save as you wish now?

        Not that it would help me that much, I rarely lost because of battles, it’s more the economic side of things that I quite can’t get the hang of. I can’t make enough gold to support full armies for 2 heroes quickly enough to keep pace with my spiteful and vile opponent. So while I’m busy thwarting the first army he sends my way again and again and again, I cannot prevent his second hero from slowly retaking territories.

        Though I had devised a strategy during the tutorial to help me with that, but I went to other games before I could try it on a real shard: wizard as first hero, necromancy specialization and by maxing spellpower and a fair bit of training you could have a surprisingly effective army of high level skeletons with no maintenance costs, leaving you with the means to train a regular army with a second hero.

      • Frank says:

        Oh, that’s too bad. I’ve bought and played the new game, but hadn’t even noticed it was taken out. Now that I know, it’s ruined! I guess I’ll have to impose that restriction myself.

  4. PacketOfCrisps says:

    I can’t wait to devour this onion encrusted pomegranate. This game looks pretty interesting too.

  5. pakoito says:

    First positive review I read after all the shit it has taken on Steam forums. The game is solid, so I am just waiting for it to be finished before playing.

    • mouton says:

      lol steam forums

      Also, from what I read the game is finished. A bunch of bugs does not mean “unfinished” or we would have no “finished” games ever.

      • pakoito says:

        And gog’s, reddit and a couple more places. It wasn’t just the bugs but that it was feature-incomplete, like Hotseat being added literally yesterday.

  6. Fiatil says:

    I know it’s not just a HoMM clone, but the combat and unit movement was so slow and clunky that I can’t enjoy the combat system. The combat is similar enough that I have to draw a direct comparison in my mind to any HoMM game, and it’s not up to the worst of them in terms of satisfactory combat.

  7. karry says:

    “Sometimes, depending on the immediate surroundings and threats, it’s wiser to stick with cheap, fast options that churn out fragile units at a rapid rate, even when more powerful options are available.”

    I dont think that is ever the right way in this particular game, especially since the number of units a hero can lead is so limited. With the only caveat that higher tier units demand astronomical levels of maintenance pay, but its hardly a choice, is it ?

    • Premium User Badge

      Adam Smith says:

      Normally it isn’t a valid tactic, but I’ve found shards in Eador that have low-level enemies nearby and within the starting region, and there it can be better to concentrate on speedy development of weaker forces to gain a foothold.

      • Jockie says:

        It’s a pretty standard tactic when playing as a warrior – you use cheap (10g) spammable units and use them as fodder while trying to level your warrior as fast as possible. The lack of upkeep means you can focus on armoursmiths and weaponsmiths to help get him quickly kitted out, you can use a warrior to solo the smaller maps on the campaign in that way.

      • vecordae says:

        I have found that snagging a scout hero on turn one, getting rid of his cheap-o default escorts and having him explore for the first three or four turns works well. Build a swordsman-rookery or knife-gym (or whatever it’s called) on turn two or three and hire two of them. You should be able to handle most of your lower-level encounters and conquer the settlements immediately around your castle without much fuss.

      • Palindrome says:

        In genesis at least my usual tactic is get 3 swordsmen by turn 3 and use them as a meatshield for my chosen hero (usually a scout or mage). Their high defense and counterattack values mean that they rarely die and can easily handle low level enemies so I can get a foothold quickly.

        How different is this game to Genesis? Is it little more than a simply reskinning or have their been mechanics changes?

    • MellowKrogoth says:

      Money is usually pretty tight especially if you want to keep your people happy, so using cheap units can really help to develop your castle and provinces quickly. Also, those cheap units are quicker than the heavily armored ones, so your hero can move twice as fast around the map which usually means getting more XP. Every turn counts in Eador, so if using cheap easily replaceable units help leveling your hero fast to rush the enemy castle, it’s a perfectly valid strategy.

      Finally the unit dwellings you build also affect the guards you can buy, and having access to some basic cheap militia to slow unrest growth can sometimes save your skin.

      I’d say that in general, don’t dismiss anything as useless in Eador ;) . The game is very well balanced to offer tough choices throughout.

      (All this speaking from my knowledge of Eador Genesis btw, MOTBW will be as good one day but as of now I much prefer the original.)

  8. Frank says:

    I played Genesis, and I agree with all of Adam’s criticisms (especially the building screen and the ambiguous terrain). Now, for a rant:

    Based on the comments here and the reactions I’ve read to The Banner Saga: Factions, I’d say the game’s commercial outlook is not good. Apparently, PC tactics gamers have seen it all. “…not up to the worst [HoMM] in terms of satisfactory combat”, eh? Let me guess, you demand more layers of numbers and complexity, like zones of control and f***ing indirect stats like dexterity, charisma and magickiness. Such folks probably feel even more confident that they know what they’re looking at here on account of having RTFM’d dozens of 4X games. We’ll good for them. Since XCOM, I’ve come to realize that Western PC gamers don’t deserve good tactics games. We’re mostly arrogant douchebags.

    • Brun says:

      What exactly obligates the consumer to purchase or even like a game that isn’t engaging to them?

      Oh right. Nothing.

      • Frank says:

        Right. I guess my real complaint is not that it probably won’t sell well, but that tactics nerds like me (or so I thought) give arrogant rationalizations for disliking the game, that come in two flavors: “the design of the tactical/strategy system is weak; and I should know!” or “wake me up when it’s not broken.” The first is total BS, while the second…doesn’t reflect my experience, anyway.

    • tormos says:

      Semi deliberate flamebait: Which do you view as the worst HoMM? I would have to say 5 for following up 3D0’s masterwork with a regression to earlier mechanics but worse

      • Merlkir says:

        Agreed on 5. 4 at least tried to change and do things differently after the perfection of 3. And while alienating a lot of fans, it was a good game. My dad still plays it religiously. 5 was just…3D and “lean”.

        • tormos says:

          my dad also plays a lot of 4. maybe some element naturally appeals to dads?

      • Frank says:

        Yeah, “semi-deliberate flamebait” is about right. Really, I’m just venting.

        I’m quoting someone else in the comments who brought up HoMM; personally, I like the first two best, but think it’s a matter of taste.

      • Soulstrider says:

        Actually 5 is my favorite, though I only played 3 and 6. And 6 only a couple of hours in the beta, didn’t taught it was bad but I just kind of forgot about it.

      • Grygus says:

        4’s campaign is aggressively stupid, so if you play campaigns then it takes the worst crown. Outside of that, I honestly believe that the first one is now the worst.

      • MellowKrogoth says:

        Heroes V with all the mechanics added by the expansions is actually very nice. And even more with the fan patches (on of them ports the older campaigns to the last expansion’s mechanics.) It has a semi-decent story to boot, something no Heroes game before could really claim.

        My favorite is the original HOMM really. I felt that despite the gradual addition of interesting mechanics, the series started going downhill as soon as they introduced the stupid good/evil divide in Heroes 2. Which led to Angels vs Demons bullshit in Heroes 3, and somehow some people thought that was core to the series… the setting was more fun in the first game. I don’t think that more is better, so H3 having a jigazillion castles doesn’t impress me.

        Heroes IV had jazzy music and other weird stuff… better not speak about it.

        I just tried Heroes VI and the campaign seems better voiced than Heroes V, but nothing grabbed my attention… I was just annoyed at Uplay, pointless “achievements” and the stuff that’s designed to get you online.

    • Fiatil says:

      Wow hey, nice job taking my quote completely out of context! I could give a damn how layered and complex the rules are in this game; that’s not what I’m complaining about at all. The combat just looks and feels extremely clunky. The animations are bad, the units look like they’re moonwalking, and there’s absolutely no weighty feeling of satisfaction to be had in casting a spell or delivering an attack. Everything surrounding the combat in this game intrigues the hell out of me, but when the core of the game feels so floaty and bad I can’t be bothered to invest my time in it. I’m not asking for AAA graphics and presentation, but I know for certain there’s a way to make a comparatively low budget game feel better than this. When even Fallen Enchantress’s tactical combat puts yours to shame you’re doing something wrong.

  9. Michael Fogg says:

    >>>a building management screen that resembles an astrophysicist’s blackboard a sure contender for least helpful game element of the year. Honestly, I just let out a sort of distressed bellow when I saw it, half laughter, half sob. I haven’t clicked on it again and I never will.

    Congratulate yourself some more for being intellectually lazy

    • Premium User Badge

      Adam Smith says:

      Go me!

      But really, there’s no self-congratulation involved – the information is available elsewhere. Have you seen that screen?

      • guygodbois00 says:

        Master (Word)Smith, one of your best reviews, especially considering the time put in actual playing, which I strongly suspect was couple of hours at most. And that screen elicited the very same reaction of me. The game feels good but will be truly great with the next couple of light patches. Oddly enough, I find details in previous (2D) version much more distinct.

      • embair says:

        I have to say that paragraph ticks me off too. The default building UI is a mess. A three layered labyrinth which granted, doesn’t look overwhelming to new player, but is an infuriating click-fest to browse through and get an overview on which buildings you have constructed or can construct. So they added an OPTIONAL advanced view, that is absolutely overwhelming at first glance, but is infinitely more usable than the main interface after you take a minute to understand it, (or, god forbid, read the manual). Not many developers these days provide that kind of convenience for experienced players, and I guess they know why – it’s like a magnet for cheap criticism. I would expect RPS to be above that though.

        • Ninja Foodstuff says:

          Something can be designed for power users without being needlessly complicated though.

        • Zeewolf says:

          The advanced building menui is the worst piece of UI design I’ve seen in years. When I first tried the beta, I played version where that screen was the only option, and I just couldn’t believe my eyes. I played it for an hour and then just left it, feeling unbelievably disappointed with the whole game (as a huge Genesis-fan). I am so glad they put the circle menu back in.

      • LordMidas says:

        How’s about a screenshot then? I for one am intrigued by this screen of doom.

        • Sparkasaurusmex says:

          It just looks like a big empty window with a few icons floating around in it.

    • Reefpirate says:

      He said he didn’t need to look at it again, and he’s right… I’ve put in plenty of hours in Genesis and never had to look at a screen like that.

    • Grygus says:

      It really is bad; originally they had the same interface from Genesis (which was also bad) but the people in Beta complained, so they threw this together near the end of Beta – unbelievably, it is an improvement in a couple of ways. I’m fairly certain there will be refinements coming sooner or later; many small UI tweaks are being requested, and the devs seem responsive to the community so far (four or five patches already, adding and changing several things asked for on the forums.)

  10. Chris D says:

    I took a punt on this at release and it’s sucked me in completely. It’s a little bit of a slow burn to begin with, although a very pleasant one as you unwrap various boxes of new toys. Once you’ve understood the contents of those boxes, though, that’s when it starts to shine. It has genuine depth, not just the appearance of it by piling on more stuff, although there is also a whole lot of stuff, and most of the stuff is really lovely.

    In the dark days before the internet, when discovering new games involved looking at boxes in Woolworths (R.I.P), I once came across a game that looked amazing from the description. I couldn’t afford it at the time and when I came back I never saw that game again. It don’t remember the name but it left an image in my head of a platonic ideal of a game with magic, heroes, spies, armies and monsters. I was always a little sad I would never get to play that game. Not any more. Eador does everything I could have wanted from that game and a little bit more. It’s a little rough around the edges maybe but it’s got heart coupled with really smart design.

    So, in conclusion. Buy this game now or you will regret it for the rest of your life.

    • pakoito says:

      Dominions 3? Buy it as a complement to Eador, you’ll be blown away.

      EDIT: FFH2 is also “in the zone”.

      • karry says:

        Except Dominions is pretty much MP only, as its quite shit for singleplayer. Unlike Eador. I am not an MP person, so Dominions felt very underwhelming.

        And FFH is not and will never be finished, and again, all the potential can only possibly bloom in MP, as AI has no idea what to do with all these weird tools and mechanics.

        • pakoito says:

          Good thing I said it is complementary and not a substitute to Eador, huh? :D

      • Chris D says:

        I did actually buy Dominions 3 but didn’t get on with it for some reason that I can’t recall now. It may have been that my old PC wouldn’t run it properly.

        I’ll give it another look sometime when Eador has loosened it’s grip a little.

        Edit: Wait! All that’s a lie. I was thinking of Disciples 3.

    • Arkh says:

      Seven Kingdoms II: The Fryhtan Wars ?

      It wasn’t turn based, but it has everything you said and is one of the games with most diplomatic options I ever saw. Plus conquering other people and “stealing” their gods was bloody rewarding.

      • Chris D says:

        I have no idea which game it actually was, although it was released in the 80’s on the Atari ST.

        I am old :(

  11. Sarissofoi says:

    I prefer Genesis or Master of the broken World.
    Better and more readable UI. Less clicking. Faster battles(no need for animations). More info.
    Even prefer more 2D graphic. It was kinda charming compared to this.
    Overall better get Genesis than this not so great reskin.

  12. Arkh says:

    How the shard map plays out? Would be awesome if, as you conquer shards, they are bound to each other, eventually leading to a united world. Also, would be cool to invade other territories – collective shards of other mage.

    Also, how are the spells in it?

    • karry says:

      “as you conquer shards, they are bound to each other, eventually leading to a united world.”

      Pretty much what happens.

      “Also, would be cool to invade other territories – collective shards of other mage.”

      That happens too. If you choose to.

      • whorhay says:

        I think he was meaning that the shards would actually be put together to make one map out of the smaller maps. What we get instead is just a larger randomly generated map anytime you are invaded, and the same for when you invade an enemy.

        The problem though would be the permanence of it all. If your conquered shards were stitched together to make a big map it would likely become way too large. And would you keep all of the heroes and buildings that had already been put up? It would end up being a huge mess, although I would love a crack at playing like that. Maybe someone will write a mod for it. Building up from nothing each shard is good and fun in some ways but it can also get tedious, having game modes or situations where that wasn’t the case could add some spice.

  13. Eclipse says:

    So there’s this one, Warlock and Fallen Enchantrss… there are quite a bunch of “master of magic” wannabes right now, who’s the best one? I’d love to pick one, any help? :)

    • Grygus says:

      At this very second, I’d call Fallen Enchantress the best MoM clone.

      • Hematite says:

        I found Fallen Enchantress unrewarding after having played Fall From Heaven and various other games with heroes and cities – a bit like Civ, where you pretty much just expand everywhere and build everything.

        Broken World has most of the meaningless choices removed which is making it a much more satisfying game for me – you really want to think about precisely which building to get and which enemy to fight each turn, and when to switch from economy to conquest.

        Apparently it’s pretty much a straight reskin of Genesis, which the developers are clear on but the internet keeps forgetting*, and that means the core game has had years of development which really shows. The interface was full of bugs at release, but they patched aggressively in the first week and it’s much better (including having an attack animation speed slider).

        *treating the internet as a single person for comedic effect

      • Sparkasaurusmex says:

        Comparing Fallen Enchantress with Eador Broken World is kind of hard for me, because Fallen Enchantress didn’t hold my attention long enough to really get into it. It just felt empty and boring. Eador: Masters of the (a?) Broken World (despite the horrible name) grabbed me right away and continues to hold my attention after 20 hours. Fallen Enchantress feels a bit like a “clone” type of game…something that’s just ideas from other games smashed together willy-nilly. Eador feels like a grand strategy tile based Might and Magicish thing with a whole new layer of strategy. And though it may not matter to some, the game is beautiful.

    • Zeewolf says:

      I wouldn’t call Eador a MoM-wannabe. It’s not as if MoM was the first fantasy strategy game with empire building elements. This is _very_ different. On the other hand, if you are the kind of gamer who loved MoM, you’ll probably love this as well.

  14. vecordae says:

    I love this game. It’s buggy as all get out for me, unfortunately, and any game where I get past the first three shards won’t go for more than 3 or 4 turns without crashing. That said, it’s so good I don’t care.

  15. c-Row says:

    Since there seems to be no demo available – how similar is this to Age Of Wonders?

  16. Uglycat says:

    For all those complaining about slow combat, it is possible to select the next unit and order their attack while the first is still going on – it will then speed up the combat. It worked better in EG, but it still carries over – you don’t have to wait for each animation to finish before starting the next unit. So hit ‘n’ and click as fast as you like.

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      There’s also a combat speed slider in the launcher options.

  17. googoogjoob says:

    This is really seriously totally a remake of Eador: Genesis- to the extent that all the units, buildings, etc are all identical to Genesis, and they didn’t even bother making new music for the remake- it reuses the Genesis music. Further, the release was apparently pushed ahead to the extent that the latest beta release was only a couple days before the commercial release.

    So: if you already have Eador: Genesis, don’t bother with Masters of the Broken World. It’s a $20 graphics improvement pack that hasn’t had all its bugs ironed out yet. If you DON’T have Genesis, though, then you should still get Genesis, because it’s great, and the graphical improvements are entirely superficial.

  18. lamocomp says:

    First, i played one shard on easy to learn, how it works. Its really deep and interesting game. I even learned how build system works – and it’s really huge.

    Than, it was time for a “very big” shard with 2 opponents and “competent” dificulty.

    Everything was going as i planned, my empire was growing, and main, Archmage hero became weapon of mass destruction – some legendary items and heavy nuker build with Firestorm(i love u), lvl 30(max), strong magicians army.


    How about this?

    You think its impossible?
    Ok – take a look.
    link to i.imgur.com
    My archmage looks like a goblin!
    link to i.imgur.com
    It looks like a goblin even in combat!!1111
    link to i.imgur.com
    Positive side – this goblin still knows Firestorm

    This is humiliating. Lvl 30 goblin archmage.

    But the main problem is that enemy in tactical combat can’t take his first turn, everything stops after i end my turn – only fast combat works. So i will not be able to fight epic hero battle(

    Hope patches will fix this.

    • lamocomp says:

      Forgot to mention – it is buggy, but playable. Until my hero turned into goblin.

  19. Erithtotl says:

    So just to clarify, this is a HoMM style game rather than a MoM style game?

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      Yeah, sort of.

      Honestly it feels like Warlock Master of the Arcane + King’s Bounty to me.

  20. obd2 says:

    I love this game