Crown and Council

About

Crown and Council is a single player and multiplayer casual turn-based strategy game with a fantasy theme. It was developed by Mojang and was released on April 22, 2016. It received neutral reviews from critics and mostly positive reviews from players.

Originally a jam game, Crown and Council is a casual strategy game of geopolitical drama. Conquer, expand, build and develop your kingdom, until all your foes are crushed! Crown and Council relied on procedural generation for the 75 included maps. The generator is built into the game, and you can generate new maps on the fly.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Skip User Reviews

61%

Audience ScoreBased on 577 reviews

gameplay16 positive mentions

stability26 negative mentions

Fun and simple gameplay that is easy to pick up.
Free to play, making it accessible to everyone.
Casual strategy game that can be enjoyed in short bursts.

Heavy reliance on RNG makes gameplay frustrating and unpredictable.
Poor user interface with unresponsive clicks and no options menu.
Lack of depth and strategy, leading to repetitive gameplay.

gameplay
88 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
18%
73%
9%
The gameplay is characterized by its simplicity and reliance on RNG mechanics, reminiscent of classic strategy games like Risk, which can lead to frustrating experiences due to unpredictable outcomes and poorly balanced difficulty. While the game introduces mechanics gradually, allowing for some strategic depth, many players find it ultimately lacks depth and can feel repetitive or buggy, with issues like unresponsive controls detracting from the overall experience. Despite these drawbacks, it can serve as a casual time-waster for those who enjoy straightforward gameplay.
- “Once you realize this game is simplistic, you can start to feel the nuances of the gameplay, and yes there is nuance.”
- “It has simple controls and intuitive gameplay which makes it a great game to fill time!”
- “The random number generator (RNG) looks wild at first but once you get to the complex gameplay it really shines.”
- “Not super critical, since the gameplay interface works well enough, but it only adds to the 'abandoned project' vibe the game gives off.”
- “Completely broken gameplay.”
- “The gameplay is so simple that it largely feels random, with victory only a practical option because the AI is so clueless.”
music
47 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
23%
54%
23%
The music in the game is generally described as soothing and fitting, but it suffers from being overly repetitive and lacking variety, with many players noting that it consists of a single track that quickly becomes annoying. While some appreciate its calming qualities, the absence of an options menu to adjust volume or mute sound effects has led to frustration among users. Overall, the soundtrack is seen as a missed opportunity for greater depth and variety.
- “The game does have nice aesthetics, with its 16-bit style art and calming music.”
- “I enjoy the relaxing music that didn't get old in the 1.3 hours I have played so far.”
- “Easy yet fun gameplay, loads of maps and awesome music!”
- “The music, while not unpleasant, is repetitive, unimaginative, and forgettable.”
- “The music is bland, repetitive, and annoying.”
- “To top it off, there's seemingly no options menu, which means you're stuck listening to the bland and repetitive music throughout the experience.”
graphics
27 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
30%
59%
11%
The graphics of the game have received mixed reviews, with many users noting that they feel outdated for a 2017 release, often comparing them unfavorably to older titles. However, the retro 16-bit pixel art style has its fans, who appreciate its nostalgic charm and simple aesthetics, describing it as engaging and reminiscent of classic board games. Overall, while the visuals may not impress everyone, they are considered decent by those who enjoy retro gaming.
- “The game does have nice aesthetics, with its 16-bit style art and calming music.”
- “I like the pixel art style.”
- “Besides the gameplay, the soundtrack is nice and the simple graphics of the game are fairly appealing.”
- “Graphics is bad for a 2017 game.”
- “I understand this is going for a retro look, but the graphics just feel old and outdated.”
- “It was a game of risk with terrible graphics that was simply based on number of clicks against an enemy territory.”
stability
26 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game is frequently criticized for its instability, with numerous reports of bugs causing crashes, freezing, and erratic controls. While some players find it enjoyable despite these issues, the overall consensus is that the game suffers from significant glitches that detract from the experience. Many users note that the game's simplistic design and quick development timeline contribute to its buggy nature.
- “Works fine most of the time, but whenever I try to use the university, the game freezes up and crashes.”
- “It's a shame that this game is just too buggy and sloppy to play.”
- “However, the game is frequently a buggy mess.”
story
10 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
10%
60%
30%
The reviews indicate that the game lacks a substantial story, with some players expressing disappointment over the absence of a coherent narrative or backstory. While there are hints of potential lore regarding the kingdoms' past, it is not effectively developed, leaving players feeling that the gameplay is primarily driven by random chance rather than a compelling storyline.
- “I apologize if you were trying to give some backstory of how these kingdoms used to live in harmony, but then broke their alliances and started fighting. It would be kind of clever.”
- “There's no story to reach the end of.”
- “I apologize if you were trying to give some backstory of how these kingdoms used to live in harmony, but then broke their alliances and started fighting. It would be kinda clever.”
- “-no actual story”
replayability
5 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
20%
20%
60%
Overall, the game suffers from low replayability due to its heavy reliance on RNG, lack of in-game explanations, and a first-player advantage. Players express a desire for additional features, such as online multiplayer, to enhance replay value, but currently, it is seen as a minimal time-waster with little incentive to replay.
- “Online multiplayer (local is already in) and some more features would greatly increase the replayability.”
- “That said, the game is too RNG-heavy, there are no in-game explanations for attack results, and the player always goes first, which reduces replayability.”
- “Not a lot of replay value.”
- “A worthwhile time waster with no replayability.”
humor
5 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The humor in the game is described as amusing, particularly in its nostalgic nod to old-school strategy board games, though some players find it lacking in depth and challenge. While some enjoy the comedic aspects, others suggest that the game's flaws overshadow its potential for humor, leading to a mixed reception overall.
- “This is a very funny game; it looks like those old school strategy board games.”
- “Finished the 76 levels... it needs a little bit more difficulty near the end and maybe a bit more funny maps ;)”
- “Funny thing is, I never built a university, and again I found myself continuing to use my same strategy of methodical expansion.”
grinding
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players find the grinding aspect of the game to be tedious and frustrating, often feeling that it leads to prolonged, unwinnable situations. The combination of unresponsive controls and a problematic gold system contributes to quick stalemates, making the experience less enjoyable.
- “You'll need a second life for grinding.”
- “Hell, even old-school Dota (even before all the comeback mechanics) wasn't quite as much of a snowball as this game - and nothing is more tedious than playing out the last few turns when you're in an unwinnable situation, or even the last few turns when the enemy has just one territory left and you can't tickle the RNG into giving you your justly-earned victory.”
- “It was tedious to play, partly because of the unresponsive controls and partly because of the gold system that I also like the idea of, but somehow it causes games to stalemate very quickly.”
monetization
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
67%
100%
The game is praised for its free-to-play model, with users appreciating that it does not heavily rely on microtransactions or pressure players to spend money. Overall, it is considered a solid free game despite some negative reviews regarding its monetization approach.
- “Overall though, I had fun with the time I spent in this game, and even better is the fact that this is a free-to-play game that isn't trying to nag you with microtransactions.”
- “This is a good free game; all these negative reviews for a free game that has no real-life monetary in-game purchases are just silly.”
- “The monetization model feels exploitative, with constant prompts to spend money on in-game items that should be earnable through gameplay.”
- “While the game is free to play, the aggressive monetization tactics make it hard to enjoy without feeling pressured to spend.”
- “The in-game purchases are overpriced and offer little value, making it frustrating for players who want to enjoy the game without spending money.”
optimization
3 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The game is reported to be poorly optimized for small displays and does not function well in full window mode, leading to a subpar user experience.
- “Not optimized for small displays or full window.”
- “The game suffers from significant performance issues, making it unplayable on lower-end hardware.”
- “There are frequent frame drops and stuttering, which detracts from the overall experience.”
emotional
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players express frustration with the emotional impact of RNG mechanics, feeling disconnected from the game's outcome when luck dictates their success or failure. Experiences of helplessness, such as losing after multiple attempts to conquer a stronghold, evoke strong feelings of disappointment and sadness.
- “When you hit a fort 7 times and it still holds, and the next turn your enemy tramples through 5 of yours, all one hits, you just want to cry.”

Skip Critic Reviews

60%Critics’ scoreBased on 1 critic reviews

Mojang Crown and Council (for PC)
Pcmag.com
60%

Skip Game Offers

Buy Crown and Council

Crown and Council
See offer on Steam

9h Median play time

7h Average play time

4-10h Spent by most gamers

*Based on 2 analyzed playthroughs

Skip Videos

Videos

Skip Games Like Crown and Council

60%1.6kreviews

Eador. Masters of the Broken World

2013

Role Playing

74%2.6kreviews

Influence

Casual Strategy

92%1.3kreviews

Antiyoy Classic

Casual Strategy

55%1.8kreviews

Sid Meier's Starships

2015

Turn-based Strategy

78%35.2kreviews

They Are Billions

2019

Strategy

More games like Crown and Council

Skip FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions

Crown and Council is a casual turn-based strategy game with fantasy theme.

Crown and Council is available on PC and Windows.

On average players spend around 7 hours playing Crown and Council.

Crown and Council was released on April 22, 2016.

Crown and Council was developed by Mojang.

Crown and Council has received neutral reviews from players and neutral reviews from critics. Most players liked this game for its gameplay but disliked it for its music.

Crown and Council is a single player game with multiplayer and local co-op support.

Similar games include Eador. Masters of the Broken World, Influence, Antiyoy Classic, Sid Meier's Starships, They Are Billions and others.

Crown and Council

Platforms

About

Buy Crown and Council