This is exactly why all Kongregate Idle Unity devs should stop using it. I mean, Unity is a 3D engine... why add all the bloated overhead for a simple 2D idle game? Surely games like this can not be that hard to directly program in Flash. Unity games are more frustrating since they require updating the player periodically, they run slower, take up more resources, are often less responsive, and even at times crash the browser. Then you have issues like this. To all devs out there: please stop using Unity for 2D idle games!
Yes, we are currently looking at CRYengine for our serious projects. Kongregate is some fun on the side in the mean time =\. Unity has repeatedly caused issues like this. This issue is most likely a server issue with the server Unity webplayer authenticates with, as I can't even log in to their forums to ask questions at the moment. I can confirm that we have not pushed an update since Friday, and the game worked all weekend and all day monday. I can also confirm that the game works just fine within unity editor, but when i build it out and try to run the webplayer from local host, it has the same loading bug. Sorry for the issue, all we can do now is sit on our hands and see how things play out.
@rudy2 No offense, but I think you are a little too thin skinned here. I believe the idea behind this game is that the ruler is a bit on the dark side (or at least questionable) herself. We are not talking about bringing a paradigm of light and new wisdom to the world here. That's pretty obvious from some of her dialogue. Still, I do like your idea, and that probably would make a good monetization area since it would require several game changes and would probably create another "version" of the game for players to buy.
Garrisons do obviously make sense. I was only trying to present an idea, not give flak (which I know you have taken enough of lately). I know I was a bit shocked when first seeing the casualties under the old system is all. Please do keep implementing your version of a game for us. Perhaps you might think about offering bonus content to monetize your game a bit more? (Instead of just through the ads)
It's something to consider but I wouldn't dare try to monetize on this game right now as it feels unfinished. I wanted to make a more realistic war strategy game but you know they can get really in depth and the people who enjoy them are more of a 'niche' audience. We just thought we would have greater appeal by simplifying the process. Plus, to make a really good serious strategy game, we would need a lot more complex math and using a lot more floating point precision variables, people in idles seem to get offended if you don't show them all the math going on for some reason. So that was another reason for simplification. Or we'd have a stats screen showing things like "Success rate: .002385803%" which would be based on a precision % of this and that and it'd just succeed in frustrating people. Sometimes, math is best kept hidden for this reason. But I simplified the math greatly in the last update in preparation for the Kingdom Overview screen which I hope people will enjoy. ~Taiga
@CoderiftStudios I don't think it was so much sending all the soldiers to fight that was the problem, but the length of real time involved in the war and the fact that there were so many excessive casualties for Touria. Unless you are trying to present Touria as a nation with very weak overall military, but massive manpower, (which there was a comment suggesting something like this once) there is no reason the war should be so drastically one sided, even with the eventual "win". Outnumbering your opponent over 100 to 1 yet still occurring over a 100 to 1 casualty ratio generally is not very realistic. Usually this sort of thing was done historically through major tactical or terrain advantages (or idiocy on the part of enemy commanders). I take it the army power versus troop number ratio show Touria as the weaker military ... but why? Perhaps addressing this question in the game would have helped players to accept the bloodbath.
I like the new system. It makes much more sense. You don't send every soldier in your country to fight a war. Plus as you gain more countries you'll need to have to keep more soldiers behind to defend each country. I mean these are the basic ideas behind war strategy games, we just oversimplified it for this idle game. So this is what I've done and I'm sticking with it! Thanks for playing. ~Taiga
@Zaodai True, the game is slow at start, but forever to fight the weakest nation? I've been playing this for one day and am about ready to fight it (Now that the offline issue is fixed). It looks like the achievements for the troop producing buildings give bonuses every other one (i.e. not 100 but at 200 and so forth; stated in the achievement description). And there is about as much to do at game start in this idle game as many other idle games (Adventure Capitalist, Idle Blacksmith, Idle Necromancer, etc.) Your criticism is a bit unfair, I think. The only issue I think is it seems like the developers *may* have released this a bit too early in their development cycle -- but perhaps not. User feedback is always important...
@fipscodingOD Oh, but it is okay for those terrorists (who ARE generally supported by those countries, as well as live and hide in them) to blow a few holes in the United States and kill a bunch of civilians in the process? All in the name of their version of a religion ... and guess what, they will keep trying to do it AGAIN for the same reasons. They pulled the United States into war, not the other way around. The game does state it is based on modern military conflicts, and the developers are giving us their presentation of it. I gave it four out of five stars for an enjoyable and well presented game. Believe the "propaganda" from whatever side you will.
@Hoistmaster I think one of the biggest problems players have is that you "win" the game before it is even possible to get all of the achievements. I was struggling to continue to advance, reset the game to get more souls, and now am told I "won" the game long before I can get all the achievements or buy all the upgrades. At least warn the players the game will be won on next reset, and/or allow them to keep playing after they win (which it looks like you actually can, though the game screen is messed up a bit).
This new interface is horrible. Not only has it always been sluggish, sometimes taking two or three clicks to respond, but now it finally even locked up my browser, so I could not scroll to the top of the Kongregate web site and load up another game after my daily "maintenance". The old interface was simple, clean, and more importantly - both ran fast and was responsive. I understand the desire to increase the "flash" of the game (no pun intended), but either optimize the game, or remove the bloated overhead of using the Unity engine for a simple 2D game like this, or do etc... It is a sad day when simple 2D online flash games start to require cutting edge hardware to run properly.
Well, this is great. While the game is now a lot flashier, nothing was done to improve gameplay (expect the separation of cash versus angel upgrades). All this in expense of a game that used to run fine but now runs slow with a less responsive UI. If I wanted to play a simple game with flashy graphics that needed cutting edge hardware I would probably go buy a PS4 or something...
I agree with Fuzzyfsh, what is with all the Kongregate developers lately arbitrarily deciding what screen resolution they expect their game to be running at? You don't see this in commercial games for a reason. Your game should adapt to what screen resolution I am running at, not the other way around.
@SpicyHorse Well, that's good to know you aren't out to promote IE only games (even if as a secondary motivation). It's a shame it doesn't work better in other browsers, but perhaps I'll go download a newer IE to play it. Good luck with your bug fixing!!
Well, this actually looked like a fun game. Too bad it crashed about less than 3 minutes into the game using Firefox. If the developers can't figure out how to make a game browser neutral before release, it probably isn't going to be a game I will be playing. I may be wrong, but my guess is this means they are using some Microsoft specific b.s. in their game. Not terribly interested in supporting companies that don't use standard web technologies that should be browser agnostic.
@8008man2 Perhaps you may have a point with some games (i.e. pay to remove a 2 hour wait time for something which occurs for every game function), but do you really expect developers to keep producing games for you to play for free if they make nothing off of it? I personally can not work for free, as I have rent, groceries, gas, etc. to buy like anyone else (which none of are free either). I bet you also do not work for free. Give the developers a break for trying to monetize their games; after all you generally do not have to buy anything....
 "Idle Conquest"){kind=icon}
 "Flash's Bounty"){kind=icon}
 "Idle Blacksmith"){kind=icon}
 "Command & Control"){kind=icon}
 "Idle Necromancer"){kind=icon}
 "AdVenture Capitalist"){kind=icon}
 "MINE"){kind=icon}
 "Prime World: Defenders"){kind=icon}
 "MegaCorporation"){kind=icon}
 "The Gate"){kind=icon}
 "Colorize"){kind=icon}
Yes, we are currently looking at CRYengine for our serious projects. Kongregate is some fun on the side in the mean time =\. Unity has repeatedly caused issues like this. This issue is most likely a server issue with the server Unity webplayer authenticates with, as I can't even log in to their forums to ask questions at the moment. I can confirm that we have not pushed an update since Friday, and the game worked all weekend and all day monday. I can also confirm that the game works just fine within unity editor, but when i build it out and try to run the webplayer from local host, it has the same loading bug. Sorry for the issue, all we can do now is sit on our hands and see how things play out.