Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
darkstar73

USS Alaska sighted

162 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
9,163 posts
14,968 battles

My prediction:

- 32mm bow/stern armor

- cruiser dispersion

- BB penetration

- BC reload

- cruiser classification = DFAA/Hydro/Radar

 

While I'm glad to see Alaska finally making her way into WoWs, I fear she'll just be another pseudo-BB with cruiser consumables tacked on.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,906 posts
6,049 battles
1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

My prediction:

- 32mm bow/stern armor

- cruiser dispersion

- BB penetration

- BC reload

- cruiser classification = DFAA/Hydro/Radar

 

While I'm glad to see Alaska finally making her way into WoWs, I fear she'll just be another pseudo-BB with cruiser consumables tacked on.

I'd expect less shell velocity, but superheavy shells and silly AA values, because American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,430 posts
3,302 battles
5 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

My prediction:

- 32mm bow/stern armor

- cruiser dispersion

- BB penetration

- BC reload

- cruiser classification = DFAA/Hydro/Radar

 

While I'm glad to see Alaska finally making her way into WoWs, I fear she'll just be another pseudo-BB with cruiser consumables tacked on.

Very much of a glass cannon™ from what I can recall. Sure she has that 9in armor belt, but it barely covers anything more than the bare essentials as I recall..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
109 posts
4,480 battles

Potentially limiting it to being available for Steel only will be a bone of contention.

 

That severely limits the number of people who can access it (which isn't a problem for a soviet daydream like the Stalingrad, but is an issue if it's a ship that quite a few people have been requesting).

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TIPC]
Players
267 posts
11,178 battles
3 minutes ago, Gvozdika said:

Potentially limiting it to being available for Steel only will be a bone of contention.

If they pull the for Steel -only thing the US server go nuts more for this one than they did for the "Alabama for ST-only":Smile_smile:

(they waiting this thing like the Messiah over there,since the begining)

Lets wait for more info on this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
109 posts
4,480 battles
1 minute ago, Bmsrt said:

If they pull the for Steel -only thing the US server go nuts more for this one than they did for the "Alabama for ST-only":Smile_smile:

(they waiting this thing like the Messiah over there,since the begining)

Lets wait for more info on this too.

Exactly. 

 

It would be like having the Warspite or Hood behind a clan-player-only wall - UK players wouldn't be best pleased. 

 

It's funny how there a few 'sacrosanct' ships fans of each national tree seem to hold particularly dear - and how much of a major hoo-ha it causes if WG mess around with them..... 

 

I agree that this is a tenuous leak though - much better to see how WG introduce it. (Wouldn't mind it as a FXP option personally.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,906 posts
6,049 battles
14 minutes ago, lafeel said:

Very much of a glass cannon™ from what I can recall. Sure she has that 9in armor belt, but it barely covers anything more than the bare essentials as I recall..

Angled, that's enough against AP. Could be susceptible to HE spam though, if the upper belt/deck is just 32 mm plating (which likely is the minimum these sections will have, while the bow will be either 27 mm or 32 mm, depending on how tanky this ship is supposed to be).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,430 posts
3,302 battles
Just now, Riselotte said:

Angled, that's enough against AP. Could be susceptible to HE spam though, if the upper belt/deck is just 32 mm plating (which likely is the minimum these sections will have, while the bow will be either 27 mm or 32 mm, depending on how tanky this ship is supposed to be).

Ap through the upper belt should tear her to pieces as well, even if it doesn't do citadels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,906 posts
6,049 battles
1 minute ago, lafeel said:

Ap through the upper belt should tear her to pieces as well, even if it doesn't do citadels

32 mm angled only gets overmatched by Yamato. 32 mm upper belt and deck would mean being on par with the squishier BBs. Beyond autobounce... just aim lower and go straight for the citadel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,430 posts
3,302 battles
1 minute ago, Riselotte said:

32 mm angled only gets overmatched by Yamato. 32 mm upper belt and deck would mean being on par with the squishier BBs. Beyond autobounce... just aim lower and go straight for the citadel.

Yamato and Mushi won't even need to go through the upper belt if it isn't angled. They can just blast shells straight through the main belt like it wasn't even there..

 

And you know as well as I do that there will be plenty of Alaskas that will be sunk due to failing to angle properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,906 posts
6,049 battles
4 minutes ago, lafeel said:

Yamato and Mushi won't even need to go through the upper belt if it isn't angled. They can just blast shells straight through the main belt like it wasn't even there..

 

And you know as well as I do that there will be plenty of Alaskas that will be sunk due to failing to angle properly.

Angled, they cannot. They can blast through the bow.

 

Beyond autobounce angle, pretty much all BBs except maybe Sharnhorst at a steep angle can punch through the main belt. But most BBs also can just blast through an unangled Kurfürst's side...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,430 posts
3,302 battles
Just now, Riselotte said:

Angled, they cannot. They can blast through the bow.

 

Beyond autobounce angle, pretty much all BBs except maybe Sharnhorst at a steep angle can punch through the main belt. But most BBs also can just blast through an unangled Kurfürst's side...

To be fair we are all being a bit premature here, seeing as literally no info is available on the in game Alaska yet.

 

But I'd like to go on record predicting her to be the dictionary defintion of a glass cannon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,906 posts
6,049 battles
1 minute ago, lafeel said:

To be fair we are all being a bit premature here, seeing as literally no info is available on the in game Alaska yet.

 

But I'd like to go on record predicting her to be the dictionary defintion of a glass cannon.

As long as it follows the scheme of the current large cruisers, certain things are very likely and having at least deck and upper belt armour on par with T9/10 heavy cruisers is pretty much a given. If it isn't better. And if Alaska gets a 32 mm bow, it basically is at least as tanky as some French high tier BB or the likes of Amagi and Izumo. Which for a BB would be mediocre, but for a cruiser is insane. If it gets a 27 mm bow, it is not as insane, but still on a level with all the normal tech tree cruisers up there and no weaker than Kronshtadt. It is highly unlikely the Alaska will receive any less armour than that, because the ship is an oversized heavy cruiser, not a super-Worcester. And for a cruiser, any of these armour numbers is tanky, especially combined with the likely very high hp pool. Will it get oneshot if someone catches the side? Yes. But that can happen to every cruiser. The real question thus is, what will the ship get aside from the few things that are pretty much a given (like high hp pool and armour that is no weaker than Des Moines)? Things like concealment, consumables, maneuverability, ahistorical armour/citadel buffs, silly ammunition choices, ...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC_DK]
Players
2,437 posts
24,624 battles
1 hour ago, Gvozdika said:

Exactly. 

 

It would be like having the Warspite or Hood behind a clan-player-only wall - UK players wouldn't be best pleased. 

 

It's funny how there a few 'sacrosanct' ships fans of each national tree seem to hold particularly dear - and how much of a major hoo-ha it causes if WG mess around with them..... 

 

I agree that this is a tenuous leak though - much better to see how WG introduce it. (Wouldn't mind it as a FXP option personally.)

Steel only and my wallet will be shut for good.  I will not fund a ship  I want but can't get. simple as that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,185 posts
3,836 battles
15 minutes ago, Earl_of_Northesk said:

I still wonder what that "leak" actually is? So far it's Flambass uploading a photo he found on Wikipedia.

Actually this leak is from last week, when Mejash was said more or less the same - Russian Dev leaked info on Alaska as new Premium.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,374 posts
9,687 battles
19 minutes ago, Hades_warrior said:

Actually this leak is from last week, when Mejash was said more or less the same - Russian Dev leaked info on Alaska as new Premium.

 

T9 or T10? So another Kronstadt disaster? These ships aren't cruisers.

 

Anyway, take it with a grain of salt. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,733 posts
9,234 battles
3 minutes ago, Earl_of_Northesk said:

T9 or T10? So another Kronstadt disaster? These ships aren't cruisers.

 

 

That's the point of view I've been advocating for the past few years.

Alaska T9 or T10 just takes a massive steaming poop all over random battles.
You can claim overmatch and lack of HE DPM all you want, but when 9 shells with 9k alpha from an invisible ship that just fired are slamming into you, overmatch or DPM won't really matter. 

 

Those ships belong as lower tier BB, artificially nerfing AA if need be.

Trying to apply CW logic to why the Alaska wouldn't be top pick as a T10 cruiser doesn't matter in the slightest in random battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,374 posts
9,687 battles
1 minute ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

That's the point of view I've been advocating for the past few years.

Alaska T9 or T10 just takes a massive steaming poop all over random battles.
You can claim overmatch and lack of HE DPM all you want, but when 9 shells with 9k alpha from an invisible ship that just fired are slamming into you, overmatch or DPM won't really matter. 

 

Those ships belong as lower tier BB, artificially nerfing AA if need be.

Trying to apply CW logic to why the Alaska wouldn't be top pick as a T10 cruiser doesn't matter in the slightest in random battles.

It wouldn't be top pick because Stalingrad exists :cap_like:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,185 posts
3,836 battles
1 hour ago, Earl_of_Northesk said:

T9 or T10? So another Kronstadt disaster? These ships aren't cruisers.

 

Anyway, take it with a grain of salt. 

I have 0 interests in Kronstadt and Stalingrad, but if they make Alaska something similar to Scharnhorst but T10, it would be a nice balanced battle cruiser.

WG is aware of the huge expectations around Alaska, so call me naive but I believe they will make it proper.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,671 posts
3,558 battles

Alaska as mid tier BB is nonsense. Shes not Scharnhost. She is not even BB, not even close. High tier cruiser is the only possible solution

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×