Game: Blood of Noble Men: The Alamo

Thread: Re: Remembering the Alamo

eker — 2008-06-10T18:27:44+00:00

Agree with this nice review. - Additional comments:

1. The game is supplied with only grey surplus blocks.Wish there was at least one spare blue block to make neutral marker. With exact number you have to use the even less perfect pieces as military units. In one game my friend mixed up counting VP`s due to all blocks are grey. With a blue counter this could probably have been avoided.

2. Track could be marked with the time limits of VP`s. Now you have to flip through rules every now and then to keep track of crucial moments of capturing buildings.

3. There is no player aid. But it is quick to make one. You need a kind of Turn Summary and a copy of tables.

4. Even if it works great with blocks - it is not perfect in this scale. It works well when bluffing and rolling up the Texan defense along the north and east wall. - But as the Mexican you loose a lot of flavour. You want to see Davy Crockett rushing to his last stand. Now you have to ask after the game where he was - where did he go - and where was he killed. It would have been much better if he was a plastic figurine (made in China).

-But overall it is a nice little game - recommended.

Thread: Remembering the Alamo

mrbeankc — 2008-06-09T09:12:44+00:00

There are few battles in American history that reach beyond just history and become legendary. Even non history buffs know it was Custer at Little Big Horn or know the fate of the Arizona at Pearl Harbor. These battles are truly American legends, as is the battle that took place at the Alamo Mission in San Antonio Texas on March 6th 1836. Pretty much most people know the name Davy Crockett and that he met his fate at the Alamo.

The Alamo itself is rather a fascinating conflict. The siege itself lasted 13 days while the final attack lasted just 90 minutes. The battle itself has not often been turned into a wargame so I was curious when I saw Worthington Games had come out with a block game simulating the battle. Worthington had done well earlier with another game simulating a siege. That game being Victoria Cross which was a nice weeknight wargame simulating the Battle at Rorke's Drift. Does Blood of Noble Men live up to Victoria Cross? Not quite.

]]>

Overview:

The game itself is a block game representation of the Battle of the Alamo that takes about 60-90 minutes to play. The two players set up in secret. First the Mexican player writes down on a piece of paper where his 4 columns will enter the board. The Texan player then places his units inside the Alamo. Once the defenders have been placed the Mexican player reveals where his forces enter and then sets up. The Mexican player has a number of goals in the game which he must achieve in oder to be victorious. These include scaling the Alamo walls and taking possession of the famous Alamo Chapel. The Texan player wins by denying the Mexicans these victory conditions and inflicting as much damage upon the attackers as possible. The Texans will eventually be overrun but how long they hold out will determine victory or defeat.

]]>

Mechanics:

The mechanics for the game are rather simple and thankfully involve a lot less dice rolling than Victoria Cross where you could get carpel tunnel from rolling so many dice. The game uses a pretty standard combat resolution tables to determine hits and casualties. In short you tally your forces, find the appropriate column on the table and roll. Simple and easy.

One nice reflection on the battle's history are the leader blocks. The Alamo is so well known for three men who died there. William Travis, James Bowie and of course Davy Crockett. Bowie was ill and likely dying at the time of the battle and as such does not have a block. Travis and Crockett however do and as such add a touch of flavor to the game. The Mexican player also have leader blocks. One for each of the four column of attackers. The leaders are especially important for the Mexican player as leaders are required for Mexican units to climb walls and to load and fire artillery captured from the Texans in the Alamo which did happen in the original battle.

Overall the game's mechanics are extremely user friendly and most players should pick up the gist of the combat in 5 minutes time making one's first game go very smoothly.

]]>

Components:

The components for Blood of Noble Men is pretty standard block game fair. The blocks themselves are very standard and truth be told could have been made a bit more attractive to the eye. Since this game's release however Worthington has improved it's block counters with Prussia's Defiant Stand so they're moving in the right direction in that area. The blocks themselves are of a nice size and of quality wood without to many funky ones that I saw in my copy.

Map wise Blood of Noble Men is outstanding. It's map of the Alamo is both pleasing to the eye and functional. It's made of a thin but stiff cardboard similar to that in games by GMT and Columbia these days. The style of the map as well is just the right to give it that historical flavor. A great improvement over it's map for Victoria Cross which was pleasing to the eye but had some practicality issues to it.

Game Play:

Here's where the game falls short just a bit, and it may just be the result of the restrictions of the battle itself. While the game itself moves at a rather nice pace there are a number of times where players simply don't have a lot of decisions to make. The Mexican player will often be sitting at the wall for a number of turns trying to scale while the Texans sit above them trying to repel their attacks. During this period players are very limited in their options outside of simply blaze away at the other guy until the Texans finally break somewhere along the wall. Once this happens their is a rapid rush into the Alamo itself as the Texans try and hold the Barracks and the Chapel until they are no longer worth any victory points to the Mexican player.

Summing Up:

In the end Blood of Noble Men is a decent if not spectacular game. At a play time of 60-90 minutes and a very user friendly learning curve it's a good choice for those weeknights when you don't have time to play something that takes a long time. History buffs like myself will enjoy the game's strong historical flavor. Wargamers however after a while may find their tactical options limited and the game lacking replay depth.

I give this game a 6

Thread: Re: Casualties Inflicted / Movement

mrbeankc — 2008-05-20T22:33:25+00:00

Lobo2 wrote:
A couple of rule questions came up during our first FTF game.

Casualties Inflicted chart:
Do you count actual SP casualties rolled or the actual SP reduction taken (due to the multiple SP increments on some blocks)?

Actual SP reduction is counted not just the number of block turns.

Artillery and leader double move:
Can a leader use his double move to move a cannon 2 zones? Can a leader move into a zone with a cannon (1 move) and use his second move to take the cannon into another zone?

The double movement only effects units with strength points. Cannons have no strength points so they are not eligible for the leader's double movement.

Thread: Re: Another last stand

mrbeankc — 2008-05-18T08:23:59+00:00

Bordgamer wrote:
Bowie was sick when the battle occured and by most accounts was probably in the barracks (wherever his bed was).

There is a lot of conjecture as to the fate of the more well known men inside the Alamo. William Travis died very early in the fight when he was shot in the head on the north wall. We know this because we actually have an eye witness to his death. So of the 3 most famous men in the Alamo his location is the only one we know pretty much for certain.

There is some conjecture about Bowie's location. Most likely he was in the low barracks.

As for Crockett, it was reported by one of Santa Anna's officers that Crockett was one of 7 men who were captured after the battle and executed. However Susanna Dickinson, the wife of one of the men killed in the battle claimed that she saw Crockett's body outside the chapel when she exited the building after the battle was over. For myself I believe Dickinson's claim as she knew Crockett well. The Mexican officer did not know Crockett and did not even speak to the man so it's hard to say that one of the survivors was Crockett from his account.

Image

mrbeankc — 2008-05-18T02:55:03+00:00

artillery battery block

Image

mrbeankc — 2008-05-18T02:54:20+00:00

Mexican Infantry block

Image

mrbeankc — 2008-05-18T02:53:55+00:00

David Crockett block

Thread: Casualties Inflicted / Movement

Lobo2 — 2008-03-16T21:15:26+00:00

A couple of rule questions came up during our first FTF game.

Casualties Inflicted chart:
Do you count actual SP casualties rolled or the actual SP reduction taken (due to the multiple SP increments on some blocks)?

Artillery and leader double move:
Can a leader use his double move to move a cannon 2 zones? Can a leader move into a zone with a cannon (1 move) and use his second move to take the cannon into another zone?

Any thoughts or has this been answered before?

Thread: Re: Another last stand

Lobo2 — 2008-03-16T05:12:46+00:00

Nice review. I think your review summed up the game quite well. I agree with you that this game doesn't offer as many interesting decisions as Victoria Cross. Having played both though, I still prefer this game because of my interest in the Alamo battle and because VC has some quirky mechanics that I don't care for.

Thread: Re: Another last stand

Sprydle — 2007-04-19T23:30:06+00:00

Excellent, informative review. Still on the fence unfortunately, although I must admit if we weren't moving this week and I had more disposeable income available, I'd pick it up right now.

Thread: Re: Another last stand

BubbaK — 2007-04-19T21:02:49+00:00

I think the Chaple is where Crockett might have been over powered or attempted to surrender. I know but with a fight like that you tell me if you knew you were beat wouldn't you try to live, The battle was lost before it began, always the chance. Those who died their no matter how died for what they believed in. I also heard Santa Ana was about ready to call a retreat because of the damage they were taking. A few more men at the Alamo and who knows.

Thread: Re: Another last stand

Bordgamer — 2007-04-19T20:40:46+00:00

Bowie was sick when the battle occured and by most accounts was probably in the barracks (wherever his bed was).

Thread: Re: Another last stand

sherron — 2007-04-19T02:16:35+00:00

El Quartel, an interior building/wall zone where I believe Jim Bowie died

I thought Jim Bowie died in the Alamo Chapel? SPI's Victory in Death he was placed there (was not able to move). I enjoyed your review, well done.

Thread: Another last stand

jrtracy — 2007-04-18T19:49:20+00:00

This week I had a chance to try The Blood of Noble Men (TBoNM), from Worthington Games. This is an area-based Alamo game reminiscent of Worthington's earlier Victoria Cross (VC), on Rorke's Drift.

The map depicts the Alamo compound and the surrounding fields in a 3/4 overhead perspective. It is more attractive than a plan view but occasionally the perspective adds a touch of confusion when determining LOS. It is a big step up from VC however, in both visual appeal and functional clarity.

Like VC, TBoNM is a block game. The Mexican army consists of infantry and leaders broken into five columns of several blocks each. The Texians have artillery pieces and gun crews in addition to their own infantry and leaders. Unlike Columbia's block games, where the unit strengths range from one to four with a point per step, here we see Mexican units as large as ten strength factors (SF), with a couple points per step. As you'd expect, the Texians are woefully outnumbered in terms of blocks and with their strongest unit clocking in at four SF, they are also at a tremendous disadvantage in fighting power per unit.

Despite their numerical inferiority, the Texians have a few things working for them:

- First are the walls of the Alamo itself - though they don't confer a direct benefit in fire combat defense, they do make it hard for the Mexicans to land a solid melee punch in the early going.

- Second, the Texians enjoy the firepower of the artillery described above. With a range of three (versus two for Texian musketry and one for Mexican small arms) and a much deadlier fire table, cannon do the heavy lifting in attriting Santa Ana's assault columns. Offsetting this a bit, there are only five (?) gun crews for the dozen or so guns, and the cannon must spend a turn reloading between shots.

- Third, the Texian infantry are much more effective riflemen than their opponents, with a longer range as noted above.

- Finally, the turn sequence itself favors the Texian cause - first the Mexicans move, then the Texians, then the Texians conduct fire combat, followed by wall-scaling attempts by the Mexicans, then Mexican fire combat, and finally a melee phase. Since infantry can fire after moving, and crews can also move to unoccupied cannon and fire them as well, the Texians use their interior lines to shift their strength and meet the Mexican assaults as they close on the walls.

Wall scaling warrants a bit more comment. Once adjacent to the wall, the Mexican can nominate up to seven units per area to attempt to scale. This attempt is more difficult if the objective wall is occupied by defenders. Some number less than the total nominated succeed, and if it's an undefended segment the Mexican player chooses which units hop up. If defended, the selection is random. This makes for some interesting decisions for the Mexican when taking fire casualties. Does he keep some units strong and let a couple take all the punishment, hoping the big guys make it to the top of the ladders? Or, does he spread the pain around as best he can, maintaining a somewhat uniform force less at the mercy of the scaling random selection?

Victory is based on casualties and the timing of the Mexican seizure of objectives. The Texian earns one victory point for every ten Mexican SF eliminated. The Mexican earns one VP for every eight Texian SF (with forty total Texian SF, this works out to a max of five VP). The Mexican also gets anything from zero to two VP depending on when he siezes his first wall zone, a further zero to one depending on when he captures El Quartel, an interior building/wall zone where I believe Jim Bowie died, and finally zero to three depending on when he gains the Alamo Chapel, the iconic building most of us think of when we hear the name.

I think the VC are the most interesting element of the design, and add life to what might otherwise be lumbering exercise in frontal assaults. The Texian must plan on the loss of his entire force, writing off five victory points at the outset. The game is fifteen turns long and has a wicked power curve - once Santa Ana is on the wall in force the Texian will quickly tire of the taste of rifle butt and the sensation of bayonets entering his ribcage will become all too familiar. He must sell his units dearly, however, and victory or defeat will turn on how he times the fighting withdrawal.

In order to deny the Mexican the max two VPs for seizing a wall by turn six, the Texian may find himself out of position (or out of troops) for the defense of the chapel. Better perhaps to yield the wall and try to hold the chapel 'til turn twelve (when it is worthless to the Mexican)? The timing issue is coupled with the need to inflict casualties - at a minimum he needs to eliminate fifty SFs to offset his own losses, and more depending on how quickly he yields ground.

Judging the minimum force necessary to hold a wall zone is tricky - the Mexican will typically be getting two or three units up on the wall, and assuming some fire casualties these will add up to 12-20 SFs. This generates an expected loss of two or three SF for the Texians per Melee phase. Thus, seven Texian SF on the wall should hold three turns. However, with some luck on the random selection and some heavy rolls on the Melee chart, the Mexican could well burn through those seven Texian SFs in two or even one turn. The timing and VP balance are tight enough that a single turn either way on the loss of a wall could make the difference.

In contrast, the Mexican doesn't seem to have as many interesting decisions to make. He must designate the entry points of his five assault columns before he knows the Texian setup. Also, his heaviest force, Amat's reserve column, won't arrive until turn three at the earliest (seven at the latest) and warrants some thought as to where this hammer should fall. Thus, his column allocations and assault points allow him to construct an operational plan that thins and distracts the defense before Amat's appearance. After that, the tactical choices are pretty obvious. Over the course of play the occasional opportunity to fork the Texian with a dilemma raises itself, but beyond that it's go go go and hope for the best.

Overall, while I enjoyed the game I find myself happier with Victoria Cross. The Blood of Noble Men is a more polished product but outside of the Texian fallback plan it lacks the decision points the earlier game provides both sides. It does offer a nice Alamo feel and plays quickly, easily handled in a weeknight playing. It has a pretty basic chassis, but the clever sequence of play and well-crafted victory point scheme push a midrange rating up to 6.5/10.

JR

Thread: SPI ALAMO?

DSpangler — 2007-03-15T15:47:33+00:00

How does this game compare to the old SPI game Alamo, which was later republished by Decision Games, I believe? The maps look almost identical (well, I know it's the same place!), and the game play sounds very similar.

Thread: Re: First play for Del and a much needed game for me.

PlaneGuy — 2007-02-16T03:21:18+00:00

There are those optional rules we didn't get to we can try.

Thread: First play for Del and a much needed game for me.

mbourgeois — 2007-02-14T09:24:02+00:00

Many thanks to both Del for playing tonight and for Worthington Games for putting it on my shelf.

The game resolved itself with the Mexicans killing the Texan forces in their entirety. The final battle was a 8 man mexican squad fighting hand to hand with a similar force of Texans. A series of poor rolls did the poor defenders of the Alamo in... God rest them.

It was an interesting fight... attaining the walls was nigh impossible. Once you were sitting at the foot of the walls and striving to reach the top you realized that 7 Units isn't a lot ot make it up and rolling the d6 after makes it even worse. Del had a little fun pushing the guys over the edge but we randomly rolled to see who would stay and who should try again next turn.

I think the thing that did the Mexicans in the most wasn't you might say the Texans but instead the damn'd rule that states death may vary depending on your play pieces. if Del rolled for one dead soldier and I could turn the piece to represent it... well then two guys died instead. I think I really did end up losing many many guys that way. Not good.

The Mexicans were truely a sad army. Their shoot and fighting skills were neglible beside the defenders and the only thing most times that made a diff was in melee with my masses of soldiers beating down on relatively few defenders. Not really a fair gig... but it was war and no one complained.

I really did enjoy the game as did Del. We may try it again next week or bring something else in... but for sure the game will reach the table again many more times.

Thread: Re: A Game on the Alamo: a good thing and a bad thing

kduke — 2006-12-30T12:58:54+00:00

And there were people of Spanish decent as part of the defending force as well.

Thread: Re: A Game on the Alamo: a good thing and a bad thing

mickmick — 2006-09-02T01:04:33+00:00

I read that at the time the Anglo colonists referred to themselves sometimes as Texian and sometimes as Texicans. One can't always trust what one reads however.

Thread: Re: A Game on the Alamo: a good thing and a bad thing

kingcujoI — 2006-09-01T20:00:28+00:00

Thank you for your thoughts Mick!

I will admit we had a tough task in making this game as deep as something like Forged in Fire. I think where Dennis was really succesful was making the game balanced. Yes the Mexicans will eventually break through in each game. But the question is can the Texians utilize movement and artillery enough in the initial stages to do proper damage. Then the question is how they conduct themselves once the walls come down.

The thing you will find though is that each side has an equal chance of winning each game. It isn't enough to just sledgehammer with the Mexicans. You have to take care of your forces just as much as the Texians do.

I think Blood excells at being just what it is...a quick playing, low complexity game on the final fight for the Alamo.

Thread: Re: A Game on the Alamo: a good thing and a bad thing

ericleesmith — 2006-09-01T19:55:10+00:00

Texican? The historical term was "Texian" - Texican is a term for a native of Mexican descent.

Thread: A Game on the Alamo: a good thing and a bad thing

mickmick — 2006-09-01T13:15:17+00:00

I'm a Texas history buff and a fan of block wargames so I couldn't resist purchasing Worthington Games "Blood of Noble Men." Nevertheless, I was a little sceptical. Despite the fact that the battle for the Alamo during the Texas Revolution is one of the most fascinating and melodramtic events in the history of the Americas, could it really make a good game? The battle was one sided. Historically, Santa Anna, who contemptously compared his soldiers to chickens when one of his generals expressed concern about the loss of life a direct assault on the fort would entail, managed to capture the Alamo in the most inefficient manner possible, yet the Mexican army still slaughtered every "Texican" soldier inside. Wargames at best simulate the strategic and tactical decisions that warfare involves. The assault on the Alamo involved little in the way of decisions, essentially Santa Anna divided his small army into four columns and a reserve force, threw together some ladders and said, "Just a little before dawn, when I give the single, everyone charge the fort at once." In short, although the Alamo might be the great subject of a movie, I wondered whether it could be the subject of an interesting and playable game.

Now that I've played the game about three times, I can give you my impressions. The game is packaged like many Columbia games in a white cardboard box fitted with a sleave that contains the box design. The cover illustration is a rather garish illustration by Gary Zaboly. He also illustrated the very interesting book that shares the title of the game written by Alan Huffines. Although art critics might be less than enamored with Mr. Zaboly's box illustation for this game, the presentation is far better than most GMT and Columbia games. The game board is printed card stock and consists of a bird's eye view illustration of the Alamo suitable for framing for the die hard student of Texas history. The rules are simple and written relatively clearly, but contain at least a few ambiguities.

The game mechanic is very similar to Worthington Games "Victoria Cross" simulation of the battle at Rorke's Drift. In this game there thankfully is a simple combat results table which cuts down on the die rolling. It also includes rules for artillery and scaling the walls. It lacks the very interesting mechanic in "Victoria Cross" by which all elimanted Zulu strength points arrive the next turn at another part of the board. So unlike "Victoria Cross", where the Zulu player attempts to pull the British player's forces from one side of the fort to another like a piece of taffy, slowly working him down, hoping to eke out a victory in the end, in "Blood of Noble Men" there is no suspense. The Mexican will eventually get over the wall and eliminate all the "Texicans." Victory is solely determined by how fast the Mexican player can do this and with how few casualties. Consequently, not only is there little suspense, there are few tactical decisions that seem critical to the outcome. As the "Texican" army do you hold the wall as long as you possibly can and then risk quick annihilation, or do you strategically retreat off the wall and hole up in the buildings? As the Mexican army do you concentrate your forces on one side of the fort and then spring your reserve on the opposite end, or do you simply try to overwhelm one side of the fort? In actual game play it seemed a critical die role had greater game consequences than the few decisions that the players are forced to actually make.

Bottom line: if you're a fan of Texas history and you don't mind playing the game no more than a few times, you won't regret your purchase.

Image

Sir Loin o Beef — 2006-08-17T20:15:16+00:00

Components fresh from the box

Thread: the rules have been posted

astroglide — 2006-08-13T23:48:07+00:00

see http://www.worthingtongames.com/

Image

kingcujoI — 2006-08-03T03:42:35+00:00

Image

kingcujoI — 2006-08-03T03:27:09+00:00

Final version of the map.

Image

kingcujoI — 2006-08-03T02:58:08+00:00

Final Alamo Box Art

Image

kingcujoI — 2006-07-03T20:07:21+00:00

Box art by Gary S. Zaboly