I love skirmish games. They are fun and competitive and mostly just pick up and play types without complicated rules and heavy set up. I’ve even owned a number of skirmish games such as Adrenaline, Wildlands, V-Commandos, Arcadia Quest, Starcadia Quest etc. Of all these, the only surviving game is Starcadia Quest. Have sold all the other games. Despite this, I was still keen about Tiny Epic Tactics.

While Tiny Epic Tactics is a skirmish game, it’s also one in the long line of tiny epic games which is a genre in itself. I’ve owned Tiny Epic Western and sold it. I still have Tiny Epic Quest and looking to sell it. While I’ve been getting rid of skirmish games and tiny epic games, why did I buy Tiny Epic Quest which is both? For that, I’ll have to explain why I sold those games.

Mine is primarily a three player group. That itself should be sufficient explanation. Most skirmish games are meant for even number of players, mostly four. Also, unlike other games, most skirmish games expect the balance to come from player actions by giving them all the tools. It works when the map matches the number of players. Three players in four quadrants is not cool. There’s always an empty space and it’s never equidistant to all three players.

Map-based games should contain modular maps that can fit various player counts. The best example for this is Quantum. (Excellent game – will talk about it later). Instead what happens with games like Arcadia Quest is the problem of an empty quadrant. Does Tiny Epic Tactics address this? Well, indirectly or should I say it makes it a bit irrelevant.

Tiny Epic Tactics is built for four players with map having four starting points in four corners of the map leaving one player always flanked by enemies while the other two having one safe side. Exactly the four quadrant-three player problem. But, the reason why it’s not that relevant or bothering here is that the map is really small and made smaller by various things such as movement rules, attack range, peaks, numerous portals, four heroes per team, battle rules etc.

That is exactly the reason Starcadia Quest also works. The map is small, too many portals, easy to jump around so no can turtle. Ah yes, ‘turtling’. Happens in dudes on a map games when the map has certain inaccessible portions which happens to be a natural habitat for one of the groups. Shogun (the one with the awesome cube tower) comes to mind. Portals are the solutions to the turtling problem but if the map is on the bigger side with fewer portals, you haven’t quite solved the turtling problem.

The other key reason why most skirmish games don’t work with three players is the king maker problem. A and B fight each other fiercely and weaken each other while C walks away to victory breaking no sweat. Three player skirmish games should incentivise attacking the leader so the balance is somewhat achieved. When one player is winning, you don’t want to give up and fight for the second place. Instead, you should go for the leader because that can propel you forward towards a potential win.

A classic example here would be the way the chess ratings work. When you win a game of chess, the extent to which your ratings go up will depend on the quality/rating of the opponent you defeated. If you defeat a player higher than your rating that would boost you up much more than if you had defeated someone that’s below your level. Three player fighting games need something like this. A motivation to go after the leader and to support the motivation, the necessary tools and methods.

Having played a ‘learning game’ of Tiny Epic Tactics, it does look a game that will work and I can hold on to. It has a lot of promise. It’s simple but there’s a lot to think about. It also allows for a lot of table talk and deal making. And the world is small even for three players. When I started this piece, I wanted to write about the tiny epic series and ended up talking about skirmish games for three players. Anyway, once I’ve played Tiny Epic Tactics a couple of times, I’ll share the gameplay experiences.