Drunknok

Eurobricks Counts
  • Content count

    1302
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Drunknok

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Berlin

Extra

  • Country
    Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Looking good already!
  2. The hut is nicely done, and I like the creative approach on the "plantation" - can be used for anything really, you do not have to care about the plant builds at all. Clever! Where are the torso and head of the old man from?
  3. Drunknok

    Sailpunk v. Historical

    Completely agreed. It would be some kind of exotic "wunderwaffe", with no impact on the game except for the odd AMCRA showing (like in the Pirate Hunt). Other than that it should have no ingame effect whatsoever.
  4. Drunknok

    Sailpunk v. Historical

    What could this possibly relate to? But as you mentioned, things like the puckle gun or the mitrailleuse are historical facts, as is the volley gun. All of these fit in the Age of Sail, so are historically and realistically correct, and thus appropriate for BotBS - and that is without any concepts from Sail Punk whatsoever. So while my first attempt at bringing something similar to the game (see above) can of course be declared a failed experiment, I will continue bringing up the idea again in the future. At some point the experiments will succeed!
  5. Drunknok

    Sailpunk v. Historical

    I voted for the mix, and do not see how anybody could argue with a straight face that BotBS is strictly one or the other. This game is obviously not purely historical. If it was, many builds would have to be rejected as inappropriate. BotBS is not realistic either - neither gods nor magic are a thing in the real world, but both have a place in the game. As for the other option: BotBS has no focus on Sailpunk. Some elements of Sailpunk are around, but they are rare. Overall I would say that the relation between "historical/realistic" and "Sailpunk" in BotBS is about 80:20. Maybe even 90:10. The bias towards historical accuracy and realism is obvious, and I have no problem with this. I do however appreciate the option to be unrealistic when I feel like it. And I have the feeling that this is pretty much the consensus among everyody here.
  6. As far as I am aware, "troop builds" do not come with any requirements at all, so anything from a small vignette to a 100x100 parade ground is accaptable - right? Going with this, licensing a build as one thing and also using it to show troops to recruit is perfectly fine in my opinion. I also prefer a build that organically includes some troops - in contrast to "here is a plate with some soldier minifigs in lines on it". Both are accaptable of course, I just prefer one over the other.
  7. I just wonder myself. Could I recruit from all Corrington settlements (according to their size), given I have sufficient funds? Or is there also a limit on how many troops each player can raise in total per turn?
  8. What does the orange mean?
  9. Fair enough. I do not share your point of view that the Sea Rats were in any form "victimized". Your faction made some major blunders over the whole Prior affairs, including some unreasonable claims - and so did the other side. Quite amusing from an outside perspective, but obviously frustrating for those "inside". Use AMCRAs and challenge builds to develop your stories. And if you are looking for a fight: the WTC can provide one. I promise we will not drag the rest of Corrington into it. Terms and conditions apply.
  10. Do some diplomacy of your own, find allies supporting your point of view, take action as you see fit.
  11. There are some cases were settlements of one faction are close enough to each other so that the "defense radius" of forts covers more than one settlement. One example is Cocovia, where King's Harbour and Quinnsville are less than 50 miles apart. So the medium fort in KH also covers QV, and the large fort in QV also covers KH (while the small forts in each only matter for their "home town"). I do not know the details of Isla de Victoria, but Eslandola has quite a few settlements there that could easily cover each other too. Is this accounted for by the raiding rules? Is this perhaps something that is about to change?
  12. Drunknok

    [WTC-AMCRA] Pirate Hunt

    The class matters for upkeep and shiplevels - both double from class 1 to class 2. So I would appreciate if this could be fixed, preferable by adjusting the class to "1". Also remember that this is the MOC we are talking about: Yes, it is "bigger on the inside" (if you have followed the story ), but to stay consistent with existing licensed vessels, this should be a class 1. I assume @Legostone could easily fix this? Edit: Just saw Bregirs reply a minute later, so we are all in the same boat (or raft ) here.
  13. Drunknok

    [WTC-AMCRA] Pirate Hunt

    It is a class 2, with the stats as per this MRCA result: In fact, it is licensed as a class 2, but with the stats of a class 1 (not the other way around). Whether it should be a class 1 with the stats above, is something only @Bregir can answer.
  14. Any faction has the right to keep any ship in one of its harbour. If those ships want to "break free", they can try to fight their way out - against the forts of those harbour. Are those not the rules of this game? If Corrington - by using diplomacy to strike a deal first, then combining its players to set up a cooperative build - manages to rescue one of its ship that has fallen into pirates hands... where is the problem? I think Oleon is much better off here: they got a large fort out of this, seriously bolstering up the defense of Lavalette. This has also been a great cooperation between players of different factions. I appreaciated every step of it! I am also slowly running out of popcorn...