WestyII

Wait for 100eu you don't even get 30 days of Premium time??? hahahahahahahahaha Scharnhorst was a far better deal. Well done WG, Hood has fallen from instabuy to notgonnabuy.

Personally I think WG's approach to this is awful. Pros Campaign Great Hood looks fine gameplay wise Cons Staggered release - it can only annoy the community. Those that want the Hood, but cant afford to buy a bundle, feel left out, or disenfranchised. Not giving Hood her historic camouflage. Unless it is behind 100eu Paywall. It just annoys your core demographic. Lying about Hoods Historic Camouflage in the campaign. So what can WG do to improve? Release all at the same time, allow people to buy what they can afford. Give all bundles her historic camouflage, or at least make it available. Dont lie about history Games like WOWS need 2 things to survive, money and community. I think the decisions have been made purely for financial reasons, without looking at the community. I wont buy Hood due to the current state, and I have had a bad taste left in my mouth which will prevent me from participating in the campaign. I think WOWS is on the way out with cash grabs like this

Greed. They want money, no other explanation.

Yes Its called the 'Intact' Skin. Its the only historical one, and only available in the 100eu bundle. And this decision has annoyed me greatly.

I think you are right. Otherwise why would they stoop so low. Maybe that's why the RN is so delayed, WOWS is bankrupt. They need these cash cows to stay afloat, so charge 50euro for Hood historic Grey Camouflage.

100eu for Hood historical camouflage?? Alright, screw you WG, I wont buy Hood. I've been off WOWS for the past couple of months, and was looking forward to coming back for HTB, maybe grabbing some premium time and the 50eu Hood package. I won't now. Just give the Intact skin to all Hood bundles, it will cost you a fortune in people not buying Hood otherwise.

Does the campaign text still incorrectly list the made-up camouflage as the historical camouflage worn by Hood when she fought Bismarck?

Utter shite. Historical camo behind a paywall is a big middle finger. I do not like this, and I wont buy Hood w in this current state.

Are you kidding? The top bundle is the only one to receive Hoods ACTUAL HISTORICAL CAMOUFLAGE? That is a joke. Thank you for taking the time to respond, but that is atrocious. How much is the top package? 100eu?

Can we get info on why Hood is blue with red turrets? Literally no evidence anywhere of this paint scheme.

Was going to buy, until they made up the Camouflages. Seeing a blue/red Hood in game is enough to put me off WOWS for a long time. Especially as it is easy to sort. Light grey - no camo Admirality Dark grey - Std Premium camo Renown 'made up camo' - reward for Campaign (at least it looks ok, and has some basis in reality) Blue Camo with Red turret - in the bin, and sack the person responsible, for crimes against fashion.

Hood is no longer an instabuy for me due to Ridiculous camos, along with WG ahistorical approach changing history to sell some ships. Ugh. Make it right WG.

Finally some more RN Can't wait. Hopefully 2017 will be the RN's year!

I'm surprised as well. Then again Gallant had a pretty busy war, certainly more busy than many other Premiums...

3 new Premiums, RN DD, US CV, and of course of Soviet ship. HMS Gallant T6 DD, could be a sign of things to come?

Nail - Head And jedi you said it yourself, why not give Hood a Dazzle camouflage, or the Admiralty Camo, and sell it as a "What If?" (Or even this blue one as a what if) Instead we get blatant Lies from WG saying this weird blue monstrosity is historical. The mind boggles. No salt, just bewilderment at the decisions WG make. Did a child draw it, and the designers copied it?

Yeah thats the only positive, but I dont understand why make up camouflages, when real ones existed. She was Admiralty Dark Grey. I have never seen reference that she was bright blue. The closest is a blue tint picture, where she is Dark Grey. Also WG have the audacity to say she was bright blue and red turrets when she fought the Bismarck?! Utter crap. What are they using for reference? A childs painted version of an airfix model?! I hate the fact WG are making up stuff that could clearly be researched in a matter of minutes and represented accurately for the same amount of effort.

That HMS Hood camo in Blue is vile. Wish there was a complaints, or suggestions, where we could badger WG to change craplike this. Also, why is there so many crap camos in this game? Surely it cant be hard to imitate a real life one?

I'm just excited for the addition a real Warship that actually existed, after all of the fantasy ones found in St Petersberg....

I agree with this sentiment. I do not find it offensive that people joke about it, I just find it rather distasteful. Not to mention the comment has been made dozens of times on this thread alone, it is possibly the most over used ‘joke’ on the forum, it is not funny the 100th time reading it.Furthermore, a similar fate happened to USS Arizona, and I see no-one joking about that?

I'm taking a break after ranked and having acquired all the ships I currently want. I will likely come back to have a brief look at French Cruisers. But will probably be off now until a new Royal Navy line comes along. Getting bored of all the fantasy stuff in game now tbh.

In the after action report, the magazine doors for the secondary battery were closed throughout the action. The most widely accepted theory is a 15in shell from Bismarck penetratng the 4in aft magazine, resulting in the catastrophic loss of Hood.

No, it was not Eugen. It had largely been dismissed as Prinz Eugen could not have been responsible for this hit because at the time the decisive hit occurred (0600 hours) the German cruiser was firing at Prince of Wales. Furthermore PE was firing High Explosive, not AP.

12 pages for HMS Hood already, seems there is significantly more interest in her than other recent fantasy ships. Just saying WG....

When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? ​When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? ​When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? ​When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? ​When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? ​When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? ​When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? ​When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? When? ​When? When