Crows & Owls
A Game of Conquest and Diplomacy in Ancient India
Designer/Publisher: John W. Kisner, 1977
The game Crows & Owls is a historically based simulation of inter-state conflict in ancient India. Crows & Owls focuses on the period of Indian history in which sixteen great kingdoms fought each other for domination. After a struggle of some 300-odd years, their number was reduced to one, and India’s first Hindu empire, that of the Mauryans, was formed in the 3rd century B.C.
1st (& only) ed. Components
0 Container/box1 34-page zerilocked booklet
1 15”x10¼” folded, un-mounted 6-color map
1 Player’s Aid Sheet
4 Play Sheets
4 Policy Record Sheets
1 Sheet of errata 1 94 Counters
Counters
1 Sheet of 130 un-mounted Leader Designation counters (letters A to D) on white cardstock1 Sheet of 64 un-mounted Kingdom Designation counters on textured tandoori-coloured cardstock
Errata
p. 1 Up to 16 (not 6) may play C&O.
p. 2 Note that players are allowed to freely discuss plans and transfer resources to other players in their inner or outer circles.
p. 3 Note that Attrition on the March within an empire or between two allied states is at one level less than the printed level.
p. 7, column 2, lines 9-15 This sentence should be taken literally, which means that not all of an empire’s Roads need be affected when the empire is at war, only individual kingdoms within the empire.
p. 12 A ‘6’ on the Policy Positions Table should read ‘neutrality’ (not ‘peace’).
p. 18, column 1, bottom Should read “1-3=” (instead of “1=3”) and “4-5=” (instead of “4=5-”).
p.19 Only 12 A’s (not 18) are included in the counter mix.
p. 20-22 Monarch effects on reduction of frontier forts, sieges, and open battles are now variable. In each case roll two dice on the “Monarchs” table printed on the separate sheet of charts. The table result is the number of fort levels that monarch reduces (roll secretly for an unrevealed monarch), and the dieroll modifier for siege or battle. Note that forces with no leader may also reap some dieroll benefit when defending. Note also that when determining the winner of a battle, use the “normal” leader values (A=1 ... D=4).
p. 22, column 2, line 33 This sentence simply means that an unmodified dieroll of ‘6’ automatically reduces the fortress level by one, whether or not there is also a breach after modifiers have been applied.
p. 31, column 1, line 18 Should read “of one each attempt after the first. Kosala picks a new mon-”. New Population During the final phase of the game turn -- the one in which monarch death is checked for -- a roll of ‘6’ or ‘8’ denotes the possibility of added population. Roll two dice; if their sum is equal to or less than the kingdom’s DL then one unsettled population point is added to that kingdom. This new population must be settled by opening new plantations and villages, until which time it reaps no benefit.
Player’s Value
In the designer’s words, C&O “...is in the main, more truly a simulation of Kautilya’s Arthasastra to which is added the illusion of a historical setting”. Kautilya was a great Indian political theorist of the 3rd century B.C., during the game’s setting. The influence of his concepts of power politics is similar to Machiavelli and Sun Tzu -- power politics must be ruthless. His Arthasastra (literally translated as “Treatise on Material Gain”) is a guide for acquiring the greatest artha, or power of wealth, which is one of the four Ends of Life in Hinduism.The game begins with 16 kingdoms, which contested for over 300 years to dominate the subcontinent and create the first Hindu empire, the Mauryan dynasty. Kingdoms will have one of five policy positions relative to each other. Listed by increasing hostility these are: alliance; peace; neutrality; war (in Kisner’s words “phony war”); and march. Much game play involves the use of resources to affect these policy positions for alliance and conquest. Players receive resources by kingdom control; these levels are also affected by population levels. These resources are then used to improve one’s own territories economically (improve infrastructure for commerce; reduce public discord; develop natural resources) and militarily (standing army; border forts; and the capital’s fortress). Aside from direct military action, resources may also be used on other kingdoms for harassment or altering policy positions. The support of assets is based on resource use for creation/maintenance. A kingdom’s well-being is reflected by a discord level which can vary from a cheery nervana to open revolt. A kingdom’s monarch has one rating for effectiveness (military; administrative; and charismatic ability) which influences combat, corruption, and attracting immigrants.
An army “marches” for combat, facing enemy border forts/garrisons, field armies, and besieging capitals. Border forts hinder movement while capture of a capital usually results in conquest (though leaders may persist as renegades). Combat is abstract -- results are derived from the roll of a single die on a table of percentage ratios shifted by difference in leadership. The victor is the combatant who loses the least number of strength points.
The game also presents extensive rules for non-player kingdoms; all 16 are in play. Though managing the activities of these kingdoms can be intensive, a player is mainly concerned with the inner kingdoms (adjacent to one’s kingdom or likely enemy) and outer kingdoms (adjacent to the preceding and likely enemy of one’s enemy, and thus a friend).
The game also has some nice chrome in horse sacrifices (divination of authority as a random mechanism for altering policy and exacting tribute); defeated leaders becoming guerrillas; and wasteful spending and corruption reducing resource levels.
Players start with one of 16 kingdoms with set resource and population levels. When the game has ended variably, the winner is the player who has had the largest percentage increase in resource level from his starting position.
Playability
Game play is like aggressive accounting. A successful ‘move’ gave one reviewer the same joy as when he discovered how large his RRSP rebate would be at tax time. This is to be expected from a game simulation based primarily on numeric values, and not a bad thing. The model rewards the player who is methodical and patient, but presents few opportunities for surprises; you can see the other guy coming from a long way off. Gameplay gives some good feel for the period but a much better sense is provided of the underlying philosophy, the Arthasastra.However, the game has a very high learning curve and requires constant attention to the complex rules. Kisner has done a great job of bringing his thesis into the gaming world, but much effort is required to get the game up and running. Given the time, fleshing the game out into basic and advanced versions for playability, providing more examples of play, and a clearer more detailed sequence of play would be great. The game is successful because it succeeds in doing what the designer had set out to do -- modeling the Arthasastra in its historic context. On its own, it is also worthwhile; its primary attractions are its exotic subject and several unique game mechanisms.
Collector’s Value
As a mid-70’s “DTP”, this game was found through some eclectic game distributors. However, today the game is considered exceedingly rare (only about 95 copies were made). Boone’s Internet Wargames Catalog does not list it.Support Material
As befits a game as unusual (in both name and subject) as this, only one reference was found to it in any of the major review magazines of the time, and that one was a simple SPI Briefing: “Moderate to fairly complex (in play, not mechanics) and of more than average length.” Richard Berg in S&T 65. Other games of this type The game was created in 1977 but began as a term paper in 1976. The designer listed SPI’s Frederick the Great and War Between the States as bases for the combat system, and SPI’s Conquistador, AH’s Kingmaker and Diplomacy as general inspiration; these games were all contemporary. However, the reviewers feel that the game has stronger resemblance to aspects of GDW’s Belter, SPI’s After the Holocaust and Battleline’s Machiavelli, which were published after this design. In general, gameplay involves monitoring and manipulating economic resources to achieve conquest and other diplomatic ends.Other games developed from scholarly publications include SimCan’s Peloponnesian War and The Chaosium’s Raiders and Traders.
Other games by this designer
None.Epilogue
Archaeologists of Sri Lanka have recently discovered inscriptions which describe in graphic detail a battle fought at the Khyber Pass about 303 BC. One of Alexander the Great’s generals, and his successor in the East, Seleucus, was defeated. Kautilya was not explicitly mentioned in these documents but his presence behind the scene as the deus ex machina is clear. The battleground was chosen, the battle was fought and the peace treaty was made exactly according to his maxims in Arthasastra.John Kisner recently told me: “The title, Crows & Owls, comes from a story in The Panchatantra. This is a collection of fables (think Aesop from India). The stories illustrate many of the ideas of ideal statecraft contained in The Arthasastra. I gave Crows & Owls only 2 of 5 stars because I’d do the game much differently today.”
Back to Simulacrum Vol. 4 No. 2 Table of Contents
Back to Simulacrum List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2002 by Steambubble Graphics
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com