The Return of Riot Squad Saturdays

"Soldiers of Ukraine's Internal Troops in riot gear and protesters clash at Bankova str, Kiev, Ukraine.
December 1, 2013" by Mstyslav Chernov/Unframe .

Partly due to the recent events in the Ukraine, and partly due to the fact that Welbo and I are in the final stages of the pre-beta release of the Valley of the Five Fires wargame, and partly due to the fact that I'm having to give a serious "re-boot" of my blogging after a period of work-load inundation, I'm re-starting Riot Squad Saturdays.

At this point, I really have nothing new to share or report regarding further development of the game, other than I think I really need to focus on what the basic scenarios are for the game. (This is something I knew but didn't want to admit, and it took Welbo pointing it out for me to say, "Okay.")

Now, some of you who've read these posts in the past may remember this is an idea I've had sitting around since the mid-90s. (Damn! Really? This idea is 20 years old? Wow.) Okay, anyway... back then, I'd only developed the thinnest of skeletons of an outline (e.g., movement was nothing more than a outline item labeled as "Movement"). I did, however, think through how I wanted the dice mechanics to work - simple counter vs. counter resolution, where (based on initiative) the "attacker" rolls and decides the fate of the "target". The charts were originally 4d6-based. Why? I have no freaking idea why I wanted something that cumbersome, or peaked at its center-point (percentile-wise in terms of chance of the result). But in re-looking at those charts, I realized 2d6 was more than adequate, provided more variance in result, and felt more "old school." Below are the adjusted charts (only the numbers under "roll" changed from a 4d6 to a 2d6 spread, otherwise, the content is essentially the same per the original mid-90s charts).



At this point, my thinking is that movement will be scenario-based, and that game resolution will be primarily driven by the resolution charts. By comparison, the Valley of the Five Fires games requires a lot of referencing of the rules based on the specific encounter (e.g., there are 8 different types of place encounters, each of which has its own way of affecting the game). Ultimately, the Valley of the Five Fires game is encounter driven, while I see Riot Squad as very resolution driven.

As a reminder, here are the various scenarios I've imagined so far...

SCENARIO 1A: "Protective" Protestors vs. Police
Protestor Goal: Protect target zone from "invading" force (e.g., eco-protest vs. corporation).
Police Goal: Break protestor zone of defense to occupy target zone.

SCENARIO 1B: "Aggressive" Protestors vs. Police
Protestor Goal: Expand zone of control by increasing protestor population.
Police Goal: Reduce protestors' zone of control (minimize population).

SCENARIO 2: Revolution
Revolutionist Goal: Expand zone of control to entire map.
Government Goal: Quash revolution (eliminate all zones of control).

SCENARIO 3:Traditional Riot
Rioter Goal: Looting and vandalism.
Police Goal: Arrest looters and vandals while keeping collateral damage to a minimum.

SCENARIO 4: Gang War
Gang Goal (Multiple Gangs): Increase zone of control and grow body count of opposition.
Police Goal (Optional): Arrest as many gang members as possible.

"Black Vulmea" Mike suggested an alternate condition regarding the arrival of media/reporters on the scene. This actually brings up a new discussion point regarding the game. Welbo and I have always tried to rely on the conceit that anything we develop for "old school" products (e.g., this sort of "zip bag" wargame) be seen from the POV of the time period in which we wished we'd developed the game. In 1980, that meant something much different than 2014, where social media outlets put things in the public eye within seconds of its occurrence. But I'm not opposed to offering "1980 Conditions for Victory" vs. "Contemporary Conditions for Victory," with the alternate rules conditions based on "the way things were" vs. "the way things are."

Thoughts? Scenario ideas? Feel free to comment below.

TO BE CONTINUED... next Saturday.

Riot Squad Saturdays Sunday:Scale Considerations Revisited

Photo: "Officer Calls Paddy Wagon for Disturber of the Peace" by Yoichi R. (Yoichi Robert) Okamoto
(for the EPA, now in the National Archives.)

Yes, I know this post is officially a day late. But if you think about it... it's actually 8 days late (since I missed last Saturday as well.) Regardless, let's turn our attention to where we left off... scale considerations.

THE COUNTERS (A Short Recap)
Recalling the post from 8/25, the counters were originally intended to represent an individual type. Then, as I thought about what the game was meant to simulate, it made more sense to let each counter represent a "unit" rather than an "individual" (per my 9/8 post). Which brings up my newest consideration...

STACKING
Stacking hinges on 2 factors: 1) the map scale, and 2) finding a way to track unit "volume" should a unit lose individual "members." Let's say you're inside a building and dealing with a lone gunman situation. Scale and unit size for this type of simulation would suggest no stacking. However, on a city landscape, where the units could represent everything from paddy wagons to a dozen protestors/marchers, stacking should be allowable. Which brings me to a related consideration...

TWO SETS OF RULES?
I strongly believe that the game will need to accommodate both of these very different scales of play: 1) the "smaller" man-to-man scale, and 2) the "larger" unit-to-unit scale. The two are obviously related, but it does help me focus on one type of interaction at at time. And since the name Riot Squad suggests the latter, this is where I will concentrate as I continue over the following weeks.

To be continued...

Riot Squad Saturday: Scale Considerations

Photo of "Anti Media Spree demo in Kreuzberg" by Libertinus Yomango.

As I was contemplating next steps for my ongoing Saturday posts regarding the development of the Riot Squad "wargame", I started giving consideration to how large of an area should be represented by the map-board. And, as a related considerations, the scale of each hex and the number of individuals represented by each counter (unit).

Though my original intention was to use the "man-to-man" scale that Welbo and I have been developing for Starmasters & The System:Expanded (see my "Samurai in Space" post), it began to make more sense to me that each counter represent a "unit" of more than one individual; this would allow for direct interaction of those (people) units with "larger" (non-people) units like SWAT vans and paddy wagons. It would also allow Welbo and I to start testing our design thoughts for scaling up the Starmasters/The System:Expanded man-to-man rules for larger scale interactions.

Without getting into too much detail, Starmasters/The System:Expanded use "effect scales" which allow d6s to be rolled providing various result strengths (weak to strong). Bonuses and penalties for damage are not given in absolute numbers; rather, they are given in shifts "up" or "down" to the attack's effect scale (thereby strengthening or weakening, respectively, the result of the roll, without changing the number of dice to be rolled). Weapons and magic spells, for example, are rated with these effect scales; certain types of armor or magical resistances cause effect scale shifts, modifying the resulting damage rolls.

In Riot Squad, my thoughts are to rank "units" (groups of individuals) with an effect scale, rather than a simple "combat number" (see my "Counters" post from 8/25/12). Then, each unit would be tracked on a separate tracking sheet, similar to the manner in which units are tracked in Battlesystem. Where the number of dice rolled = the number of individuals in the unit, and the effect scale would be determined by the unit. This would actually allow a large "individual" unit (like a SWAT van) to interact directly with a "multiple" unit counter (like a group of protestors). For example, a unit representing 5 peaceful protestors might roll 5d6 on effect scale A, and a single police fan unit might roll 1d6 on effect scale M. This would also allow crowds to grow to overwhelming numbers without having to track hundreds of counters on each turn.

TO BE CONTINUED... next Saturday.

Riot Squad Saturday: Scenarios and Conditions of Victory

"Man Alone WTO1999" photo by J.Narrin, 1999; used under the GNU Free Documentation License.

In the ongoing series of Saturday posts built around creating the Riot Squad "wargame," today I'll begin to outline what I see as the various game scenarios with some basic goals (conditions?) for victory. What follows are just my initial thoughts, but I only welcome suggestions for other scenarios or variations/changes on the ones below.

In most cases, the following scenarios would have a "duration" of a specific number of turns, except the revolution scenario; I could see that one like playing out like a game of monopoly.

SCENARIO 1A: "Protective" Protestors vs. Police
Protestor Goal: Protect target zone from "invading" force (e.g., eco-protest vs. corporation).
Police Goal: Break protestor zone of defense to occupy target zone.

SCENARIO 1B: "Aggressive" Protestors vs. Police
Protestor Goal: Expand zone of control by increasing protestor population.
Police Goal: Reduce protestors' zone of control (minimize population).

SCENARIO 2: Revolution
Revolutionist Goal: Expand zone of control to entire map.
Government Goal: Quash revolution (eliminate all zones of control).

SCENARIO 3:Traditional Riot
Rioter Goal: Looting and vandalism.
Police Goal: Arrest looters and vandals while keeping collateral damage to a minimum.

SCENARIO 4: Gang War
Gang Goal (Multiple Gangs): Increase zone of control and grow body count of opposition.
Police Goal (Optional): Arrest as many gang members as possible.

JOIN ME NEXT WEEK...
I'm not quite sure where it goes from here, but I suppose we'll see!

BTW, how cool is that photo by J. Narrin at the top of this post? And this one...

"WTO protests Seattle WA 1999" photo by J.Narrin, 1999; used under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Riot Squad Saturday: Counters & Turn Sequence

So last Saturday's post introduced the Riot Squad game concept and gave the general outline of the rules. Today, we'll take a look at where I see the turn sequencing going, which is directly related to the information on the counters.

Since I have not established the various scenarios yet, I'm going to move forward assuming that there will be a multitude of scenarios (e.g., gang war, political riot gone bad, etc.), each with its own conditions for "victory." In general, I see victory being related to "ground possession"--that is, which factions have which areas under control after the specified number of turns.

OVERVIEW OF COUNTERS

Counter Facing
Something you may have noticed about the counters above is that all of the "civilian" counters face right, and all of the law enforcement counters face left. This is really technically unnecessary, but I thought it would be nice when a riot policeman is giving a protestor a beat down with his billy club, that the two of them are face to face. It seems to enhance the animosity... don't you think? It does have another benefit in the context of Morale Ratings (see below).

Movement Rating
This seems like a given. All counters should be able to move. Otherwise, the game turn would consist of something more akin to a Wild West shoutout, where people just sit and fire at each other from behind the cover of tables, pianos and the bar.

Morale Rating
I don't see how you can have a game about the human spirit without a Morale Rating. In some ways, I see the Morale Rating of a counter as being more important than any other rating. In some scenarios, it will truly be the deciding factor (e.g., at what point does that passive resistor give up and leave?) I also think it's possible that in some scenarios, the Morale Check will act more like a "saving throw" vs. morale, where the citizen counter may find himself face-to-face with a law enforcement counter, and the morale of the citizen is made vs. the "threat" of the law enforcement counter (using the law enforcement counter's Morale Rating as the Threat Rating vs. the citizen's Morale Rating.)

Combat Rating
In some scenarios, I see traditional "combat" being an accepted convention (e.g., lone gunman vs. responding police force). However, in the case of political protests, "combat" may be little more than standing one's ground in the face of an encroaching (police) faction. For that reason, I see each counter needing to be rated for combat (in some form or another). Right now, I see counters armed with ranged weapons as being rated with a number, but unarmed counters being rated with an "H" (for hand-to-hand). This notation/indication may change at the playtesting phase but, regardless, there needs to be an indication there.

TURN SEQUENCE

Right now, I see the turn sequencing going something like this...

I. Movement
I was going back and forth on this for a while, thinking that the Morale Check should have been first. But then I realized when two counters are "engaged" (after a movement sequence), that's when the Morale Check really comes into play (e.g., that beat cop just stepped up to you and is aiming his gun in your face... NOW make that Morale Check.) I'm thinking that "who moves first" will really depend on the scenario (e.g., in a lone gunman scenario, I think the gunman should first, but in a passive resistance protest I think that the law enforcement faction should move first.) And in some scenarios, I could see rolling for initiative. Regardless, 1 pt. of movement equals 1 hex of movement (generally, that is; there may be additional movement types that will require more than 1 pt. of Movement Allowance to complete.)

II. Morale Checks
I don't think that Morale Checks should necessarily be part of every scenario. I could see them being optional in some, required in others, and not required at all in some. When Morale Checks do occur, though, I'm thinking they'll always be after the Movement Phase.

III. Interaction Phase
Please notice I did not say "Combat Phase." In some scenarios, the interaction phase may be bargaining/negotiating. In others, it may well be gunfire. Regardless, it's going to be the outcome of the Interaction Phase that closes things up for the turn, and helps the players decide their actions for the next turn (beginning with the Movement Round.)

JOIN ME NEXT WEEK...
as I move on to outline some scenarios and establish some conditions for "victory."

Riot Squad Saturdays?

If you read my post from Thursday, you know that some years ago I started work on a tabletop wargame called Riot Squad. What I failed to mention in that post was the game was conceived as simply "Riot", in reaction to the Rodney King riots of 1992. Since then, we've seen the WTO Seattle protests (1999), the Italy G8 riots (2008), the recent riots-turned-revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, plus plenty of other protests and uprisings (Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, et al.) It seems that as long as there are people to stand up for what they believe, there will be factions that seek to "put them back in their place."

The last decade has also seen the revolution of print-on-demand solutions, and that means producing low-quantity/high-quality copies of the game are only a click away. So... what I've decided to do (based on a prodding comment from Black Vulmea Mike over at Really Bad Eggs), is use Saturdays (a day where my wife often sleeps in, and I am up early with nothing better than Law & Order re-runs to keep me company) to continue work on Riot Squad. I figure if S&T can crank out 1 a month, a dozen-or-so Saturdays should get me fairly close to complete.

Today's post--the outline of the game rules (the skeleton upon which the game's meat shall be built.) Again, as I mentioned Thursday, wargames don't exactly re-invent the rules of gaming, so here's my thinking (guided by the sample wargame from The Complete Book of Wargames).

I.	COMPONENTS
	A. Mapboard + Explanation
	B. Counters + Explanation
	C. Dice & Combat* Tables + Examples
II.	HOW TO PLAY THE GAME
	A. Setting Up the Game (assumes base scenario)
	B. Sequence of Play
	C. Zones of Control
	D. Movement
	E. Combat
IV.	OPTIONAL RULES
III.	EXAMPLES OF PLAY
III.	ALTERNATE SCENARIOS

*In some cases, I use the term "combat" loosely (e.g., unarmed protestors in fascist countries) and, in some cases, quite literally (e.g., gang wars).

To be continued... next Saturday.

For image attribution information, click here.

A Game I Put Some Work Into But Am 99.9% Sure You'll Never See...

I worked on this baby in the mid-90s. This tabletop wargame would pit "citizen" factions (e.g., protestors, rioters, etc.) against various police forces (riot police, SWAT teams, etc.) I didn't get terribly far, but that's a lot more than you'd think, considering these kind of wargames don't exactly re-invent the wheel:
1) give every body ("each counter") an attack type/rating
2) give every body a defense type/rating
3) create some d6 based combat charts
4) determine conditions for victory

I just felt like as much as I liked the idea at the time, it just wouldn't be too commercially viable. But given the current state of POD resources (like Superior POD), it wouldn't take nearly the financial obligation now as it would have in 1996.

If nothing else, I really dig the Squad Leader inspired cover.