VC381

I would love some skill based MM especially because it might make lower tiers more enjoyable.

Alabama: 19-3 = 16 Benson:12 Atago: 50 Mikhail Kutuzov: 36+1 = 37 Shōkaku (2/2/2): 28 I don't get how NC got eliminated but Alabama is still here, they're basically the same ship. Good ships, but not deserving such different scores. I love Atago but Kutuzov is still top dog cruiser for me. I think with the OP premium cruisers at T8 it's no surprise they're topping the board. BBs are strong but they're somewhat predictable, these cruisers have tricks that let them carry very hard in the right hands.

You only need to leverage the way you do because you designed the whole business model around being able to do this. There are dozens of other "free" online games with different models. In my opinion, you could choose a different models to make the same money and annoy fewer people. In my opinion, it's fine to offer bundles that are expensive but give you everything inside cheaper than it would be individually. But offering things exclusively in expensive bundles is milking and preying on people's desires. If a few weeks later you simply sold every component of the bundle separately, even more expensive than its equivalent price as part of the bundle, there would be no issue. As I said, there are other games that don't rely on these tactics and are still very profitable. That's why people are annoyed. We understand the logic and are happy you are sharing it with us, but you're making it sound unavoidable when really it is a choice.

The business logic behind the staggered release makes sense and although I know it's what is annoying most people I genuinely don't care about this bit. But to say you're "leveraging vanity" comes off a bit funny to me in the context of what you're actually doing here. I imagine most people who buy big bundles do so because they think the bundle is a good investment and can afford it. I highly doubt a camouflage and/or a flag will make a big difference in how many of those bundles sell. So you're not leveraging vanity there, you're wasting the potential to leverage it by giving away vanity items in a pointlessly gated way. What I was always surprised you don't do (which many successful games do) is lock down the ability to mod and commission some guys just to make camouflages and skins, and sell 3 or 4 (or even half a dozen) different permanent camos per ship, some historical, some just cool, whatever. Everyone would be happy!

I get that but it doesn't explain why the people who DO want it can only get it as part of a huge bundle. Would it really be that hard to sell it for 2k doubloons as an additional camouflage on the ship?

Is there any feedback as to why there was a last minute decision to implement a non-historical camouflage as default and why the only truly historical camouflage is only available behind the giant paywall that is the top bundle?

From the RN perspective and what they knew at the time, the Bismarck and Hood were similar sized ships with superficially similar layout and capability. Bismarck may have been newly built but German naval engineering was behind due to various treaties and she was very out-dated in concept. It was not as huge a mis-match as people think, although the RN could not have known or estimated the actual power and ballistics of the German 38cm guns, which invalidated the ranges Holland assumed Hood would be (fairly) safe at. Still, Holland was justified in his actions given what he knew at the time, and as his attitude was a product of his training and the expectations of him as an RN officer to be aggressive and decisive. Also, the battlecruisers were only "wrong in principle" if you continue to view the issue with hindsight tainted by soundbites an "truisms" that aren't really true. The battlecruiser concept actually makes a lot of sense in context. Fisher intended from the start for battlecruisers to completely replace battleships and they were armored against their own guns based on tests at the time of how badly their shells penetrated at even moderate ranges. It was really a thought process that if the point of the "all big gun" concept revolved around fighting at long range only, then thick armour is redundant in principle and speed is both tactically and strategically more useful. The whole idea was unfortunately a bit beyond the technological ability and political willingness of Fisher's time, and the type was tainted by a failure that in reality had little to do with their underlying design (other than this being blamed as a cover-up, which is where most of the often repeated false ideas come from). But the battlecruiser principle is vindicated by the fast battleship designs of the 1930s, themselves embracing the concept of range as armour via the now more mature "immunity zone" analysis. Besides, history has shown us that naval battles are not decided by guns and armour but by position and situational factors. We're talking about battles decided by a very small number of hits and tactics that are basically planning to increase or decrease the probability of fairly unlikely events in your favour. It wasn't a hard science.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Look up "Special Service Squadron" or "Empire Cruise". Basically, in 1923-24 she (and Repulse and a few light cruisers) sailed around the world over the course of a whole year to show the flag and reassure British colonies and allies that after the war to end all wars the RN was still top dog and would be there for them. Because of this, everyone and their dog from Capetown, to Sydney, to Vancouver, knew who had the biggest and fastest capital ship in the world, what she was called and how she looked (which contributed a lot to the impact). Iconic doesn't begin to describe how Hood was perceived back then. For most common people she WAS the Royal Navy.

Do we know if the historical grey camouflage will be available for purchase separately at a later date, or are they basically saying "the only way you're getting an actual historical looking ship is by paying for the top bundle"?

Also they could pull an even worse move and make her base cost significantly more than other T7 premiums "because Hood".

Well, that might be more than £100 before too long

Probably, because it's still the Hood and I want it despite being very disappointed with their choice of non-historical camouflage. But I'm in no rush, don't care about bundles or campaigns, so I'll wait and see the "ship only" price. But if they continue to screw us on that front by making it more expensive that the other T7 premiums, then that will be the last straw.

Repulse camo is by far the least worst of the bunch. It looks suitably toned down and was actually worn by a similar ship in a similar time frame. But there's still so much wrong in all this I'm fuming about it. Also I guess this means Repulse herself isn't even vaguely on the cards. Or if she is, we'll have Repulse in a wacky non-historical camouflage for no reason other than Hood is already wearing her actual one! Or fans of both ships could consider it a "bright side" of getting two in one

What's the 'Hood "intact" skin' that comes with the most expensive bundle? Is that the overall dark grey or is it the same horrible white turret mess that comes as a campaign reward? The Repulse camo is cool in itself but FFS WG, are you that scared of people finding grey "boring" that you make Hood, one of the most anticipated ships in game, un-historical because of this? You did mono-colour with Arizona, fix it for Hood please...

I have a 12-point captain on Benson, 2 points spare and 20k XP to Fletcher. I plan to sell Benson, play Fletcher with this captain and I don't care about getting to Gearing. So, do I take TA now or does it make Benson and stock Fletcher torps unusable? Or do I wait, don't spend the points, and take TA as soon as I have Fletcher top torps? Or do I take AR now and TA later (or not at all)?

The problem with the spotter is not that it doesn't do enough, it's the liability of the screwed up aim PoV and zoom level messing up all your learned lead distances.

Looking at the planes in the screenshots the fighters and DBs are T7. So could be a similar concept to Kaga, with lots of planes but lower tier ones. Either way, good job finally bringing this famous ship to the game!

Alabama : 21 Benson: 32 Atago: 43 Charles Martel : 6 Mikhail Kutuzov: 37 +1 = 38 North Carolina: 22 Tirpitz: 18 Bismarck: 3 -3 = 0 bye bye!

Independence (1/1/1) : 20 Independence (0/2/1) : 20 Independence (2/1/0) : 20 New Mexico : 20 Cleveland : 20 Farragut : 21 Arizona : 20 Shinonome : 20 Mutsu : 20 Ryujo (1/2/2) : 20 Ryujo (3/1/1) : 20 Fuso : 20 Aoba : 20 Fubuki : 20 - 3 = 17 Hatsuharu : 17 Graf Spee : 20 Bayern : 20 Nurnberg : 20 Ernst Gaede : 20 Warspite : 20 Leander : 21 Molotov : 20 + 1 = 21 Budyonni : 20 Gnevny : 20 La Galissonnière : 17 Dunkerque : 20 Anshan : 20 Duca d'Aosta : 20 Perth : 20 Fubuki is pretty but underwhelming especially compared to Shinonome, that is everything Fubuki should have been. Molotov, rocket with railguns, nuff said.

Benson: 35 Atago: 41 Charles Martel : 20 Chapayev: 5 - 3 = 2 Mikhail Kutuzov: 41 + 1 = 42 North Carolina: 22 Tirpitz: 17 Bismarck: 4 Shokaku (2/2/2): 27

Benson: 35 Atago: 40 Chapayev: 11 - 3 = 8 (tried playing without stealth fire, it's painful, very little left to recommend the ship on) Mikhail Kutuzov: 41 North Carolina: 23 + 1 = 24 (got one recently and the guns are pretty amazing) Tirpitz: 17 Bismarck: 7 Shokaku (2/2/2): 26

New Orleans can citadel broadside North Carolina at 10km, not sure about Iowa. Generally though, aim a bit higher on the hull, you will get decent damage. On the flip side, a cruiser's "armour" against BBs is the rudder. I'm not denying random citadels are possible and annoying, but all the complaining comes across as memory bias to me. The randomness is part of the package but you can reduce the frequency significantly by keeping your wits about you and dodging, even at fairly close ranges. BBs need to be able to occasionally deal massive damage, it's their thing and as a cruiser main I still find it satisfying to sometimes take a BB out and see big numbers come up. I wouldn't want it different even if it meant fewer overpens or an easier time for my cruisers. The gamble is part of the fun on both sides.

The camouflage is a joke. Actually, there was a brief period when Hood seems to have had a lighter A turret: but not on her final mission and certainly not the BS WG is spouting. Well, the best part for me about the camouflages being hideous is I don't have to care about playing the campaign, I can just sit back and enjoy my Hood

I think it's pretty obvious that the game lumps together dispersion due to ballistics and inaccuracy due to fire control as one thing and uses a single control to simulate the effects of both. Although these are the justifications on the surface, it's also clear this is just a balancing handle with only superficial connection to real life. Thing is though, with the simplified arcade nature of the game, how else would you implement it? Sure you can say the player is the fire control but if it was to be done realistically the effects of camouflage would be very hard to simulate on screen and it would basically make your accuracy dependent on your computer hardware. The only other way I can think of is if the UI lied, basically if it rendered enemy ships at slightly wrong distance or angle (or even rendered the wrong ship) based on camouflage. I imagine that sort of thing being incredibly frustrating though... So we just have to accept Hood is less accurate than Warspite, because balance, with the excuse that her FC is older.