Jump to content
Affeks

USS Alaska, Tier 9 USN FXP premium "CA"

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles

With the upcoming Stalingrad and especially relevant Kronshtadt I want to revisit Alaska and later some other Super crusiers/Large Cruisers/Cruiser killers/battlecruisers that are applicable to this new archtype WG is coming with. 

 

1200px-USS_Alaska_(CB-1)_off_the_Philade

 

Previously it has been very unclear whether Alaska would be a BB, a CA or given special treatment. As Kronshtadt would indicate, these ships will get special treatment as a hybrid between the BB and Cruiser in gameplay terms. Getting a little and losing a little compared to both standard ship types.

 

uss_alaska__cb_1____1944_by_colosseumsb-

 

Hull, Survivability and Armor

Spoiler
  • Health (based of a metric tonnage on full load of 34 253):  63 450
  • Armour: 230mm belt, 36mm weather deck, 102mm citadel deck, 
  • Turret armor: 325mm face, 152mm front cheeks, 133mm sides, 133mm rear, 127mm roof
  • Torpedo Defense: 14%
  • Dimensions: 246.5 m length, 28m beam
  • Consumables: Damage control party (20s uptime, 120-80 second cooldown)
    Standard Defensive AA/US tier 9 Hydroacoustic search
    Catapult fighter/Spotting aircraft/standard US tier 9 Surveillance radar  
    US cruiser Repair party, 2 charges standard, 3 charges premium

 

Main armament

Spoiler
  • Gun Model: 305mm/50 Mark 8 guns in triple turrets
  • Layout: AB-X 
  • Rate of Fire: 3 RPM, 20 second reload
  • Range: 19,59 km
  • Turret Traverse: 5 deg/s, 36 second/180 degrees
  • Sigma: 2.05
  • AP Shell: 9000 damage, 762 m/s velocity, 60-67,5 degrees ricochet/autobounce range
  • Penetration (@4.5/9.1/13,7/18,3km): 542/463/395/323mm
  • HE Shell: 4400 damage, 808 m/s velocity, 24% firechance

 

Secondary and anti aircraft armaments

Spoiler
  • Secondary guns: 6x2 127mm/38, 10 RPM, 6 second reload, 1800 damage, 5%firechance, 5km range
  • Torpedo armament: N/A
  • Long range AA: 6x2 127mm/38, 90,6dps@5km
  • Mid range AA: 14x4 40mm bofors, 222,6dps@3,5km
  • Short range AA: 34 20mm oerlikons, 122,4dps@2km

Maneuverability

Spoiler
  • Top Speed: 33 knots
  • Rudder shift: 13.8 seconds
  • Turning Radius: 820m

Concealment

Spoiler
  • Surface detection range: 14.4km
  • Air Detection range: 11.7km
  • When firing from smoke: 11km

 

Some notes, I opted to give Alaska the USN BB damage control party, as I think it would help differentiate Alaska from the tech tree cruisers, but also from the other Large Cruisers of this ship archtype.

 

The stats are a mix of historical data, gameplay data from existing ships and compromises between US CAs and BBs mostly Baltimore and Iowa as they are the closest ingame contemporaries from the same nation and what authors usually use to compare Alaska in litterature. All stats are double checked and compared to Kronshtadt for balance. 

 

In this state I think Alaska strikes a good balance between heavy cruiser and battleship, is balanced vs. its current ingame rival Kronshtadt and most importantly has a lot of national flavour from USN tech trees.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, Players
5,335 posts

there is no point put another BB from USA on free xp , so better they make a CA type ,,,, maybe would buy  then , in other way just stay with my miss or musa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ARYA]
Players
596 posts
15,400 battles

I think they need to introduce battlecruiser class to put these ships on it !

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,378 posts
2,939 battles

Golden rule :

when you make a new topic enter the title at the very last moment after everything is done. That way, if an accidental ctrl/enter tries to post it while unfinished, it'll fail and simply ask you to enter a title.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles
28 minutes ago, LastButterfly said:

Golden rule :

when you make a new topic enter the title at the very last moment after everything is done. That way, if an accidental ctrl/enter tries to post it while unfinished, it'll fail and simply ask you to enter a title.

duly noted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,770 battles

I agree t9 free-XP CA is the best implementation for Alaska and I would definitely buy one. I'm just a bit concerned about how these ships will play. The game has a very narrow definition of class roles and the original class balance was not designed for ships like this. A cruiser that is big and sluggish doesn't bode well. I'm not sure if it can carve out an enjoyable playstyle niche in the current high tier meta, at least not one a more normal heavy cruiser won't feel better and more comfortable in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles
1 hour ago, VC381 said:

I agree t9 free-XP CA is the best implementation for Alaska and I would definitely buy one. I'm just a bit concerned about how these ships will play. The game has a very narrow definition of class roles and the original class balance was not designed for ships like this. A cruiser that is big and sluggish doesn't bode well. I'm not sure if it can carve out an enjoyable playstyle niche in the current high tier meta, at least not one a more normal heavy cruiser won't feel better and more comfortable in.

I am also very concerned. By looking at Kronny and Stalingrad it seems they will be significantly less accurate than ordinary cruisers at range. I expect it to be even more so for Alaska due to much lower velocity on shells. This is why I wanted to give Alaska a concealment that goes as low as 11km with all buffs applied and a relatively good maneuverability for its size together with improved autobounce to help this ship get into those close quarters. So compared to normal USN cruisers this thing will fare worse off against DDs due to lacking HE DPM and accuracy, but on the other hand can threaten BBs much better all while having the same AA prowess as upcoming Buffalo. 

 

Being designated a cruiser, this thing has the same acceleration pattern as cruisers so it wont be all that sluggish as you might think. The size still makes this a juicy target for BBs given the right circumstances, but historically this thing had a 36mm weather deck and if said plating can be applied to upper plating as well would mean Alaska can shrug off Yamato shells if angled correctly. I think this would make Alaska have the tools to deal with most threats given the right skill without being too overpowering against any one enemy.

 

To get a more educated opinion than this I think we just have to wait to get our hands on Stalingrad and Kronny in the meantime.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,770 battles

They may have the acceleration patterns but just looking at Kronstadtd, 14s rudder shift on a cruiser makes my skin crawl.

 

Also they may be able to angle and tank but even 12" guns won't really threaten BBs without some major flanking. And the fire chance may be high but it will be unreliable as a damage source with low rate of fire and poor dispersion. Again, a typical CA would burn a BB faster.

 

You already said DDs are out, that leaves cruisers. I love the battlecruiser and cruiser killer concept but that's exactly what the high tier meta doesn't need, a 6th ship on each team to punish the 2 or 3 normal cruisers that are on the enemy team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles
6 hours ago, VC381 said:

They may have the acceleration patterns but just looking at Kronstadtd, 14s rudder shift on a cruiser makes my skin crawl.

 

Also they may be able to angle and tank but even 12" guns won't really threaten BBs without some major flanking. And the fire chance may be high but it will be unreliable as a damage source with low rate of fire and poor dispersion. Again, a typical CA would burn a BB faster.

 

You already said DDs are out, that leaves cruisers. I love the battlecruiser and cruiser killer concept but that's exactly what the high tier meta doesn't need, a 6th ship on each team to punish the 2 or 3 normal cruisers that are on the enemy team.

I dont think this archtype is that much bigger of a threat against CAs as any standard CA. If anything Alaska is much worse at punishing angled cruiser compared to a CA, but is slightly better at punishing someone that misplays or mispositions and shows their side. In this regard I dont mind this being the 6th ship as it punishes mistakes but cant punish correct play. Cruiser killers are automatically much more noob friendly than normal cruisers due to higher health and armor, so its nice to force these back to higher skill floor by making them only shine when playing aggressively, flanking and punishing bad play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7 posts
2,437 battles

All you guys wonder about balance or place, will it work? Hybrid, can it exist.

 

WG already tested this. And the anwser is yes, but it will seem a failure at first and then people will love it more and more over time.

 

How do we know this. They have a hybrid in game... Three tiers below, Graf Spee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles
4 hours ago, gekistan said:

All you guys wonder about balance or place, will it work? Hybrid, can it exist.

 

WG already tested this. And the anwser is yes, but it will seem a failure at first and then people will love it more and more over time.

 

How do we know this. They have a hybrid in game... Three tiers below, Graf Spee.

Graf spee is a different ship, it can overmatch equal tier cruisers with its guns and even tier 5 BBs. It makes the balance process of the ship completely different hence why I havent mentioned it.

 

All the ones I mentioned can only overmatch DDs and specifically RN CLs. Not cruisers and much less BBs ofc.

 

Tier 5-7 bracket is completely different from the 8-10 bracket for a plethora of reasons and overmatch being one of the most important ones for BBs and CAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7 posts
2,437 battles

The reason why I didn't go into details about balance or a comparison is exactly because of all the reasons you mentioned. Wrong tier, different set up.

 

I merely wanted to point out Graf Spee as an 'out of the box' ship. 

 

When it came out most YouTuber could not make up their mind about it. They could see it strenghts but found it hard to make them work or at least de the general population do so. 

 

People thought it just that it came via campaign or sale for the busy/lazy because making this a purely for money ship was inconceivable. It was to much of a novelty. To special, to 'out there'...

 

Now that was how long ago? What happend? People very slowly warmed up to her, got to even love her. It has a regular tech tree spot. 

 

What I'm basically saying is. WG should implement more 'strange' ships that defy normal classes. And the its up to is to not expect a grand almost op ship. But rather a quirky, needs time (a year) to get used to, ship. 

 

Balance is important but a lot off players like variety in their prems. Make it weird! In time we will love it. Just dont expect OP or ranked battle win button.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,770 battles

Yup, I'm all for variety and premiums are an excellent opportunity to do something that's just different. I'm being unfair because I really like these ships and want them in game but I'm worried that they way they are being implemented will not click with my idea of fun cruiser play.

 

We'll have to wait and see how Kronshtadt plays. Having said that, I just noticed Kronshtadt is a good 30% heavier than Alaska, so maybe there's scope for Alaska to have better soft stats than @Affeks suggests in the opening post as she is a smaller ship, less HP.

 

Also, I think they should use USS Guam's camouflage :Smile-_tongue: not that Alaska doesn't look nice but that three-tone on Guam is just gorgeous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles
36 minutes ago, VC381 said:

We'll have to wait and see how Kronshtadt plays. Having said that, I just noticed Kronshtadt is a good 30% heavier than Alaska, so maybe there's scope for Alaska to have better soft stats than @Affeks suggests in the opening post as she is a smaller ship, less HP.

I have already taken the smaller size of Alaska into account. Hence why with the same calculation Alaska still lands at 7k less HP. So with that in mind I gave Alaska soft buffs in Autobounce angles, turning circle/rudder and concealment better than Kronshtadt. 

 

ofc right now Kronshtadt has 18.5 sec reload which is better than my version of Alaska, but I would like to keep this historical RoF figure till we know whether Kronshtadt in its current state is strong or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FL4-0]
Players
1,143 posts
15,958 battles
En 3/5/2018 en 22:57, Atorpad dijo:

I think they need to introduce battlecruiser class to put these ships on it !

:Smile_sad:

 

8JoLRo3.gif

 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,842 posts
4,770 battles

They don't need to make battlecruisers a separate type. They've already shown there is enough freedom to put ships of very different design philosophies in one existing type. Some battlecruisers will be battleships, others cruisers. Probably only gun size will make the difference.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles

Seems I missed on a few of the stats on Alaska haha.

 

From dev blog:

ST, American cruiser Alaska, Tier IX

Hit points – 60 800. Plating - 27 mm. Armor belt – 229 mm. Torpedo damage reduction – 13%.

Main battery - 3x3 305 mm. Firing range – 20 km. Maximum HE shell damage – 4300. Chance to cause fire – 27%. Maximum AP shell damage - 8900. Reload time - 20 s. 180 degree turn time - 36 s. Maximum dispersion - 216 m. HE initial velocity - 808 m/s. AP initial velocity - 762 m/s. Sigma value – 2.05.

The parameters of the dispersion ellipse are equal to the values of the Graf Spee cruiser (better than battleships, but worse than common cruisers).

The parameters of the ricochet angles of AP shells are equal to the values of the American cruiser Des Moines.

Secondaries - 6х2 127 mm, range - 5,0 km, Maximum HE Shell Damage - 1800, Reload Time - 6.0 seсonds.

AA defense - 34х1 20 mm, range - 2,0 km, damage per second - 122. 14х4 40 mm, range - 3,5 km, damage per second - 223. 6х2 127 mm, range - 5.0 km, damage per second - 91.

Maximum speed - 33 kt. Turning circle radius - 850 m. Rudder shift time – 13,8 s. Surface detectability – 16,2 km. Air detectability – 12,1 km. Detectability after firing main guns in smoke – 12,8 km.

Available consumables:

Slot 1 - Damage Control Party

Slot 2 - Defensive AA Fire / Hydroacoustic Search

Slot 3 - Spotting Aircraft / Catapult Fighter / Surveillance Radar

Slot 4 - Repair party

All stats are listed without crew and upgrade modifiers but with best available modules. The stats are subject to change during the testing.

Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary.

 

 

So for the most part my values are a bit too high. HP, AP/HE alpha and a few others. This is mostly because most numbers on USN ships are rounded up, yet on the dev blog it seems they are not. I notice my firechance is set at 24%, and thats a typo. I meant to insert a 26% chance there. In this one it seems WG has rounded it up to 27 instead of my rounded down 26. 

 

In wows dev blog Alaska has way to high concealment imo. Alaska is smaller than Iowa so why does it have as high detection as it? WG seems to forget ships classified cruisers also doesnt get as much concealment from CE so in short, Alaska has worse concealment than Iowa and Missouri...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,565 posts
6,731 battles
12 minutes ago, Affeks said:

Seems I missed on a few of the stats on Alaska haha.

 

From dev blog:

ST, American cruiser Alaska, Tier IX

Hit points – 60 800. Plating - 27 mm. Armor belt – 229 mm. Torpedo damage reduction – 13%.

Main battery - 3x3 305 mm. Firing range – 20 km. Maximum HE shell damage – 4300. Chance to cause fire – 27%. Maximum AP shell damage - 8900. Reload time - 20 s. 180 degree turn time - 36 s. Maximum dispersion - 216 m. HE initial velocity - 808 m/s. AP initial velocity - 762 m/s. Sigma value – 2.05.

The parameters of the dispersion ellipse are equal to the values of the Graf Spee cruiser (better than battleships, but worse than common cruisers).

The parameters of the ricochet angles of AP shells are equal to the values of the American cruiser Des Moines.

Secondaries - 6х2 127 mm, range - 5,0 km, Maximum HE Shell Damage - 1800, Reload Time - 6.0 seсonds.

AA defense - 34х1 20 mm, range - 2,0 km, damage per second - 122. 14х4 40 mm, range - 3,5 km, damage per second - 223. 6х2 127 mm, range - 5.0 km, damage per second - 91.

Maximum speed - 33 kt. Turning circle radius - 850 m. Rudder shift time – 13,8 s. Surface detectability – 16,2 km. Air detectability – 12,1 km. Detectability after firing main guns in smoke – 12,8 km.

Available consumables:

Slot 1 - Damage Control Party

Slot 2 - Defensive AA Fire / Hydroacoustic Search

Slot 3 - Spotting Aircraft / Catapult Fighter / Surveillance Radar

Slot 4 - Repair party

All stats are listed without crew and upgrade modifiers but with best available modules. The stats are subject to change during the testing.

Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary.

 

 

So for the most part my values are a bit too high. HP, AP/HE alpha and a few others. This is mostly because most numbers on USN ships are rounded up, yet on the dev blog it seems they are not. I notice my firechance is set at 24%, and thats a typo. I meant to insert a 26% chance there. In this one it seems WG has rounded it up to 27 instead of my rounded down 26. 

 

In wows dev blog Alaska has way to high concealment imo. Alaska is smaller than Iowa so why does it have as high detection as it? WG seems to forget ships classified cruisers also doesnt get as much concealment from CE so in short, Alaska has worse concealment than Iowa and Missouri...

 

 So she is indeed inbound? Not a huge surprise but but sure how I feel about these ships. I am normally for putting this type in into the T10 CA spot but I am not interested in Alaska and Kronstadt the slightest. Let’s see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles
1 minute ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

 So she is indeed inbound? Not a huge surprise but but sure how I feel about these ships. I am normally for putting this type in into the T10 CA spot but I am not interested in Alaska and Kronstadt the slightest. Let’s see.

I dont like Kronnies gameplay design, but a more close range, improved Autobounce ship is way cooler... But again concealment is bad for some reason so idk... We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,565 posts
6,731 battles
3 minutes ago, Affeks said:

I dont like Kronnies gameplay design, but a more close range, improved Autobounce ship is way cooler... But again concealment is bad for some reason so idk... We'll see.

 

Issue for me is that - just returning from almost half a year break - realized that the high tier meta didn’t improve. It’s even worse in my opinion - too much of everything and WAY to campy and passive. Whoever dares to peak out behind an island gets blobbed hard. And as DD you get constant radar’d and blobbed. And for this environment WG tries to sell me a ship...? I think I pass and wish everyone the best of luck and fun. But not for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JUNK]
[JUNK]
Beta Tester
1,932 posts
8,396 battles
10 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Issue for me is that - just returning from almost half a year break - realized that the high tier meta didn’t improve. It’s even worse in my opinion - too much of everything and WAY to campy and passive. Whoever dares to peak out behind an island gets blobbed hard. And as DD you get constant radar’d and blobbed. And for this environment WG tries to sell me a ship...? I think I pass and wish everyone the best of luck and fun. But not for me.

As someone who plays CA, BB and only a handfull of DDs (Kidd, Grozo and Aki) high tier is the only place where the strategic components of WoWs shine in randols and are enjoyable to play with. Low-mid tier is basically just a high octane deathmatch, which is fine in itself but doesnt showcase the strong points of the game.

 

 

Tyen again I cant speak for CV players and real DD players. Just personally high tier is where I have fun now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,976 posts
11,274 battles

I wonder why they gave it the same conceilment value as Kronstadt, I would guess the Alaska guns won't be as railgunny so in that case conceilment could be a bit better.

I'm glad it's getting radar, even though it's not because I think more radar is what the games need but because I believe it to be fitting to the ship.

 

But besides that I'm glad they are putting some effort into it, will be watching this one :Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×