Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'alaska'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section


  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 16 results

  1. Furius_Marius

    Azuma vs Alaska

    Well, as I understand Azuma is the Japanese counterpart to Alaska. Both Super-cruisers are tier IX, both cost 1M free XP. But only one its a real super-cruiser. Alaska its just amazing and fun. Good guns, good armor, very very difficult to citadel, fast, not bad turning, Good TT, Radar, Hydro. Good AA. Extremely versatile. I love this ship. Azuma, have great guns... terrible TT, extremely extremely squishy, even angled or bow in. Same Speed as Alaska, worst turning, easy to citadel, no radar, Good AA(but seems less effective than Alaska) Both similar concealment. U are huge, if they want to hit u they will hit u. I think its too situational ship. Why i so big gap? U see a lot of Alaskas in battle almost never u see Azumas. I think Azuma don't have bad statistics because very few people play and are mostly very very veterans players. But IMO Alaska have the upper-hand in almost all departments. I don't own Yoshino(seems a better Azuma but a tier higher) but a lot of people told me that Alaska in tier X its a better ship than even Yoshino. Maybe to give at least to Azuma same armour as Yoshino? Whats your opinion? thanks in advance.
  2. I have both Azuma and Alaska. But personally I perform better in Azuma (60k-100k dmg usually) than Alaska (34k-65k dmg usually) when it comes to damage. In Azuma I tent to survive a bit more in matches than Alaska. However I also die quicker due the non existing armor on Azuma. Both are usually in the second/third line of the fleet behind the dds, especially Alaska since I like to give our dds a heads up with radar. But since that I can both give my team and myself info with Alaska, shouldnt I perform better with it?
  3. Afghanicus

    Alaska VS Puerto Rico

    I guess many of you saw this video... What do you think after watching it? Is the Alaska really a better ship overall even tho it's A LOT easier to obtain. (I believe, in theory, you could obtain like 2-3 Alaskas for a grind needed for PR) Is this just a result of too much PR hate (expected) or a true, objective opinion? I mean nobody (well, almost) has the Puerto Rico to say from experience but knowing PR has Montana's dispersion and having access to the stats as well as some CC's video about it.. we can form an opinion I guess.
  4. Wie kann es sein das eine Alaska eine Neptune mit einer Salve komplett zerstört. wer bei WG hat sich den scheiß ausgedacht sie ist zwar nicht die best gepanzerte Schiff´, aber trotzdem ist das nicht der Grund dafür ein Schiff welches so schon anspruchsvoll zuspielen ist einfach von einem Premium der mal um eine Ecke schaut vernichtet zu werden. Bitte WG macht da was das kann einfach nicht sein. LG LordGregor
  5. Hello once again everyone, Finally we get our hands on the USS Alaska and my first impression is that this ship is incredibly strong. I included my full build including ship upgrades and captain skills including highlights from my very first game in the USS Alaska I hope you all enjoy my latest episode of my How to play series featuring the World of Warships Premium Battlecruiser USS Alaska plus Wows Review Guide
  6. Hallo liebe WOWS-Community! Als stiller Mitleser melde ich mich hier auch nun mal zu Wort. Ich habe mich jetzt bei den Japanern und Deutschen bis auf Tier 8 hochgespielt und mir jetzt mal nach längerer Recherche das Premiumschiff Alaska gegönnt, dass meinen Spielstil ganz gut treffen sollte. Da ich bei der Skillung nicht unnötig Umwege gehen möchte, würde ich bitte um eure Meinung zu zwei Themen bitten! Welche 6 Verbesserungen sollte man eurer Meinung nach in der Alaska verbauen? Welche Skills soll der Kapitän besitzen? Freue mich über eure Antworten und Meinungen! Beste Grüße, Heavymaxx o7
  7. jerkchicken

    Buff Alaska

    Alaska in this current state is trash HE alpha way to low, I prefer DM with 3 times faster DPM and still getting same damage Azuma got good HE alpha, alaska should have less alpha then azuma then it should be balanced. shame of that 1mil fxp
  8. Hallo zusammen! Ich hätte da mal eine Frage an diejenigen, die sowohl Alaska als auch bereits die Azuma haben. Habe bald (~ 180.000 Free-XP ausstehend) die 1.000.000 Free-XP voll und stehe vor der Frage, welchen der beiden CA ich anpeilen soll? - Sollte der Thread hier falsch/fehl am Platz sein, bitte ich darum zu verschieben/darauf hinzuweisen! - Zu mir bzw. meinen Vorlieben: - Hauptlinie sind/waren bisher die deutschen Kreuzer, gipfelnd in der Hindenburg mit der ich überaus zufrieden bin. - US CL (Cleveland; Seattle erforscht, aber noch nicht gekauft) mit Licht und Schatten, aber ganz spaßig. - sonstige ("relevante") Tech-Tree Fortschritte: KM: BB T7 IJN: BB und CA T5 UDSSR: CA T6 RN: CA T8, BB T6 FRA: BB und CA T6 Dazu ein paar weniger relevante Premiums. - Spielstil: abwartend aber nach Möglichkeit offensiv, gerne auch Mal infight, wenn sich die Gelegenheit ergibt. Alles mehr oder minder mittelmäßig. Die In-Game-Stats sehen Recht ähnlich aus, wobei die Azuma die höhere Zita hat und auch auf Radar verzichten muss. D.h. demnach müsste die Alaska die bessere Wahl sein, sofern ich richtig liege. Kann mir da jemand eine Empfehlung aussprechen bzw. die Unterschiede) Vor- und Nachteile näher bringen? Vielen Dank im vorraus für konstruktive Beiträge und Empfehlungen, The_Judge1893 Edith hat Fehler aufgelegt.
  9. Leo_Apollo11

    Initial "Alaska" stats...

    Hi all, Initial "Alaska" stats... #1 If we go to "WoWs Stats & Numbers" we get: https://wows-numbers.com/ship/3760109552,Alaska/ and with less than 40 players with at least 40 games in her... #2 If we go to "MapleSyrup" we get: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20190302/eu_week/average_ship.html Number of battles differ (and they should because the MapleSyrup collects data weekly on fixed day) but overall stats more-or-less match... Leo "Apollo11"
  10. FukushuNL

    Another radar ship

    1 Day and I'm already done with the Alaska. I was interested in getting her as I haven't gotten any of the other BC yet, but nowadays, between the English cruisers, the Russian cruisers and the American cruisers, I am permaspotted when trying to contest a cap. And now we have another radar ship in our midst. I did a game in my Jutland and have been camping an island for like 5 minutes, no kidding, because I had a continuous radar icon above my ship. If the Neptune's radar was on cooldown, the Worcester went on, followed by the Alaskas. I now refuse to buy the ship as I don't want to be putting other DD captains in that position. I'll wait for the Asuma or the T10 Japanese.
  11. now, a small opening: i'm loving the alaska, way more than kronstad, it feels as a ship that rewards good aim and punishes mistakes ( both mine and of the enemies), in certain situation it becomes a bb ( against 381mm opponents), it has great utility thanks to the ability of slotting radar and hydro a the same time, making it a nightmare for dds ( cvs usually won't attack you anyways) but i started noticing sometimes a bit of lack of penetration, until a youtube comment on one of the CC's review let me notice that alaska is missing a tad bit of penetration. Now, i know that those are not tested values ( it would have been hard to test), but usually wows is quite close to the navweaps penetration values ( as they both use the Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration), and you can see ( looking at the site http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.php) and from the armada/wows artillery chart) that the alaska is missing about 30mm of penetration across the board. Now this might not look like much, but it has some consequences in game, especially against bbs at shorter ranges, for examples at 9.2) kms the difference is 460mm for the site and 430mm of in-game-pen ( 425mm at 10 kms for the new armada video) , that's the difference between a shatter/bounce and a penetration/citadel on tier 10 bbs that shows the side. Another, maybe even stronger example is at the distance where the alaska get spotted, so around 12.2 kms: at that distance the in-game reported pen is 381mm, the site reports a 395mm pen at 13.7 kms ( 1.5 kms longer range, in which the in-game pen is a bit less than 360mm), so at that distance it should be around 415mms, the difference between challenge a slightly angled tier 9-8bbs belt/citadel and not. I know that i'm probably splitting hairs here, but imho it would be a nice change to make. what do you think?
  12. Alaska and Azuma has one important thing going for them compared to Stalingrad, Which is concealment. Now with the increased fire duration Stalingrad will suffer two times, From bad concealment and the fire duration. Stalingrad concealment will even get worse with the upcoming changes to the Concealment captain skill which will make things even worse for the ship. Also Kronshtadt is already balance with her inaccurate guns, So why she gets that 60 sec fire duration as well?!! The only reason WG did that IMO is to please the players who doesn't have both ships. I'm not pleased with these adjustments.
  13. Hi all, "Alaska" seen in the wild... possibly/hopefully next FreeXP ship... I hope... Last night I had a pleasure of playing game with 3 "WGP2W" Clan members one of which sailed the "Alaska" - it was a good fight and we won! Unfortunately we spawned on opposite sides of the map (I was in my "Fletcher") and I didn't have opportunity to see the "Alaska" up close... he did end up #1 in our team (and I did rather good as well - killed enemy CV)... Leo "Apollo11" P.S. 400.000 FreeXP already stored (with "Missouri", "Musashi", "Nelson" and "Kronstadt" in port)...
  14. Hi all, "April White Mouse" @LittleWhiteMouse posted her early "Alaska" thoughts... http://shipcomrade.com/?p=1438 Leo "Apollo11"
  15. So with the Scharnhorst ending up at tier 7 and Dunkerque at tier 6 I started wondering where the other Battleship/battlecruisers with thinner armor or smaller guns might end up. Heres a little comparison of the most important stats I piled together. Some info might not be a 100% accurate, but I don't think any of them will make or break the ship, especially when WG tweaks stats all the time. Also I didn't write the medium/small caliber AA as they might be tweaked by WG and refits/design changes make finding a good number hard. You can still imagine that Alaska will have USN grade AA, B65 will have most of her AA in the 5 km range due to her 100mm DPs that are used only on tier 9s and 10s so far... etc. (Note: I don't know a 100% if B-65 was supposed to have above water turret mounted torpedoes. Also I used the ingame speed of Scharnhorst, not the one noted on Wiki and other sources. Lastly, unless noted Strasbourg has the same stats as Dunkerque.) Personal picks Strasbourg tier VI (just straight up better Dunkerque) B65 tier VIII (probably better guns than Scharnhorst as well as better torps, better DP, better speed, better Deck, which I think will make up for worse Belt) Alaska-class Tier VII-VIII (Depends on how good AA, guns, mobility they give her tbh) Design 1047 tier VI (Same guns as Scharnhorst, but other than speed shes worse in most aspects) Please discuss, and let me know if I left out something.