Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nordavindr

Alaska Vs Kronshtadt

47 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[OCTO]
[OCTO]
Players
82 posts
6,014 battles

Hello,

 

Now as there are already some videos of Alaska, I would like to know what you think about it.

How is it performing compared to Kronshtadt? Maybe some of You had a chance to play both ships and I would like to hear Your opinion.

Does the ships offer differen playsitle? 

Which is less stationary ? Are both bound to island hagging? 

I know Alaska is still in progress and subject to possible change but anyway, WG can change everything even in existing ships.  

If you had 750k of Free XP and wanted to spend it on one of those cruisers, which one it would be and why?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-T-O-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,185 posts
6,367 battles

Too early to judge. However for now Kronshtadt is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,547 posts
16,696 battles

As far as I've seen Alaska plays like a hybrid between USN BBs and Baltimore.

Personally I'd probably enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,032 posts
13,469 battles

AA is a big difference. (Lately my poor Kronshtadt sees a lot of Midways, not fun...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-GG-]
Players
262 posts
14,006 battles

Alaska is easier to pronounce.

 

Kronshtad is more or less an usuall product of WG "copy-paste, switch some gimmicks, there goes a new Russian ship (tank)". Particulary seen in WoT, where you can drive dozens of Russian clones. 

In short - Moskva is for poor, casual grinders, Kronshtad for more dedicated or p2w players, Stalingrad for 0,01% unicums, supertesters and comunity contributors.

 

 

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGNAV]
Players
183 posts
6,572 battles
4 minutes ago, radius77 said:

Alaska is easier to pronounce.

 

Kronshtad is more or less an usuall product of WG "copy-paste, switch some gimmicks, there goes a new Russian ship (tank)". Particulary seen in WoT, where you can drive dozens of Russian clones. 

In short - Moskva is for poor, casual grinders, Kronshtad for more dedicated or p2w players, Stalingrad for 0,01% unicums, supertesters and comunity contributors.

 

 

Idk about Alaska, but Kronshtadt is not a direct copy of Moskva. The hull is quite different in terms of armor layout and thickness. Stalingrad is a Moskva copy with a tiny bit of extra armor on the citadel sides and bigger guns. Kronshtadt has less armor on the deck and upper belt, but more on the lower belt and citadel. Also her citadel sits lower in the water. As a compensation her guns are really inaccurate. 

 

I personally would wait for Alaska to go out of the WiP stage before making any comments. For Stalingrad for example they made a lot of changes during the testing and development - it was hard to know what the end result would be until she was released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,032 posts
13,469 battles

I wouldn't compare Kronshtadt to Moskva. Moskva should be noticeably tankier and immensely more accurate. Also it has decent AA (in comparison). Now it is widely held that Stalingrad is the Moskva 2.0 as it keeps basically all the traits.

Talking about it, almost seems like Kronshtadt is undepowered in comparison, but at the very least, it gets a very nice concealment only 700m over its radar range.

Now Alaska keeps all the traits of the US heavy cruisers except it is bigger and has bigger guns. Frankly I feel like it will be stronger than Kronshtadt thanks to the US AP characteristics and the AA where Kron ony boasts flat trajectory with fast shells.

 

EDIT: Ok, what the? Now first couple replays of Alaska have creeped up on Youtube and so far it completely outshines Kronshtadt. And people are pretty much all calling for buffs?! Is this all american bias or something? Clearly now anything less OP than Stalingrad is just no more acceptable, balance be damned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OCTO]
[OCTO]
Players
82 posts
6,014 battles
16 hours ago, Toivia said:

Kron ony boasts flat trajectory with fast shells

but

22 hours ago, almitov said:

her guns are really inaccurate

 

must be annoing ship this Kron with long reload fast shells going everywhere but on target.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,744 posts
7,207 battles

Tell that to all those broadside cruisers I regularly citadel from long range with Kronshtadt.

Sure it isn't really accurate, but it is accurate enough, more than the average BB, and the fast shells allows to nail broadsides quite easily from any range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,032 posts
13,469 battles
3 hours ago, Nordavindr said:

but

 

must be annoing ship this Kron with long reload fast shells going everywhere but on target.  

Yeah, Kronshtadt, unlike Stalingrad and so far Alaska, has BB dispersion (literally US BB dispersion, worse than IJN BBs). Those other two boast Graf Spee dispersion, which is a middle ground between regular cruisers and BBs.

Now Kronshtadt and Alaska both have regular T9 cruiser 2.05 sigma, while Stalingrad has the absurd 2.65.

In effect, Kronshtadt has worse accuracy than Yamato, pretty similar to North Carolina (only the shells are fast, so easy to lead, easy to overshoot target).

Alaska has better accuracy than North Carolina, comparable if not better than Yamato.

And then there's Stalingrad...

 

Of course you can debate whether fast shells are better than slow shells, but that pretty much depends on personal preference. Fast shells (Kron, Stalin) will under- and overshoot regularly. Slow shells (Alaska) give the target time to avoid.

 

Overall, I've cooled down a bit from that last post's edit, but I really stand behind the notion that Alaska needs no buffs. If you buff Alaska in the gun department, Kronshtadt deserves the same Graf Spee dispersion all other "really heavy cruisers" have.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,845 posts
4,581 battles
2 hours ago, Toivia said:

Yeah, Kronshtadt, unlike Stalingrad and so far Alaska, has BB dispersion (literally US BB dispersion, worse than IJN BBs). Those other two boast Graf Spee dispersion, which is a middle ground between regular cruisers and BBs.

Now Kronshtadt and Alaska both have regular T9 cruiser 2.05 sigma, while Stalingrad has the absurd 2.65.

In effect, Kronshtadt has worse accuracy than Yamato, pretty similar to North Carolina (only the shells are fast, so easy to lead, easy to overshoot target).

Alaska has better accuracy than North Carolina, comparable if not better than Yamato.

And then there's Stalingrad...

 

Of course you can debate whether fast shells are better than slow shells, but that pretty much depends on personal preference. Fast shells (Kron, Stalin) will under- and overshoot regularly. Slow shells (Alaska) give the target time to avoid.

 

Overall, I've cooled down a bit from that last post's edit, but I really stand behind the notion that Alaska needs no buffs. If you buff Alaska in the gun department, Kronshtadt deserves the same Graf Spee dispersion all other "really heavy cruisers" have.

From what ive seen, the alaska has worse gun performance than the kronny, probably because it has moon arcs and a slower reload, that along with not having kronnys belt armor seems... debatable. As far as i can tell, alaskas only real advantage is aa.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,032 posts
13,469 battles

Alaska has better armor though, afaik. Kron has 25mm all over the place, except only the belt armor (it also doesn't get the Moskva/Stalingrad 50mm lower belt on bow). Alaska may have a thinner belt, but it gets something like 27mm ends and 35mm central deck from memory. And the belt really doesn't matter, if you're angled, both are enough to autobounce everything, not angled and the difference is only for small AP shells from DDs and light cruisers, maybe. Alaska gets the advantage of not being overmatchable pretty much everywhere by every BB, that's huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BS4]
Players
140 posts
8,870 battles
52 minutes ago, thiextar said:

From what ive seen, the alaska has worse gun performance than the kronny, probably because it has moon arcs and a slower reload, that along with not having kronnys belt armor seems... debatable. As far as i can tell, alaskas only real advantage is aa.

 

As far as I'm aware, looking at the stats and vids, Alaska's main advantages vs Kronsthtadt are:

 

+27mm bow/stern allowing Alaska to bounce 381mm and smaller AP (Alsace, Roma, Monarch, Bismarck, etc.)

+28mm casemate, allowing Alaska to shatter 130mm and smaller IFHE (mostly coming from Atlanta & Flint, but potentially from GER-SOV-US DD's etc.)

+36mm Weather deck, giving Alaska Immunity vs 460mm AP, 155mm IFHE  and 180-203mm 1/6 pen HE 

+US Heavy cruiser auto-bounce angles (60-67.5 degrees) that allow AP to punish miss-angling

+AA

+(situationally, lazy, us gun arcs that allow island camping)

 

Alaska's weaknesses:

 

-(situationally, lazy, us gun arcs that make long range gunnery hard)

-Optimal gun firing angles: 35o front/45o back vs Krons 25o front/30o, Kronshtadt can fire all three main gun turrets from inside auto-bounce angles

-DPM / reload

-Raw hp values, that also affect heals

-Shell travel time, duh, 762ms vs 900ms for AP

-Due to the shell travel time, much lower effective/practical firing range

-Detection range vs radar range, both ships have 16.2km base detection, that goes down to 12.4km. Krons radar is 11.7km, Alaska's is 9.45km, but it last longer (oh, and Iowa's detection is base 16.2km also, and it goes down to 12.16km)

 

I've written this a couple of times already, and I'm writing this again:

Alaska's surface detection should be in-between Iowa's and Baltimore/Buffalo, around 14.5-15.0km base (11.14-11.52km), for two reasons

1. It's gun performance, size, hit points, and handling sits pretty much in between Iowa and Baltimore

2. It can't compete equally with Kronshtadt in long range fights, Alaska needs to close the range to make it's guns work, and slightly improved stealth would help Alaska get into positions.

 

Besides improved stealth, other possible (pending testing) buffs would be:

-improved rudder from 13.8s down to 12.5s

-slight buff to firing arcs, as long as guns wont clip other parts of the ship. From looking on some of the test vids, there is a few degrees of room for rear turret and a bit more for front guns; 33o front/40o rear

-30 -33- 36mm upper belt/casemate, 30mm allowing Alaska to bounce 420mm AP from it's belt, while 33mm would give Immunity vs 152mm IFHE and 460mm AP, while 155mm IFHE and 203mm HE would pen due to rounding rules.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,032 posts
13,469 battles

Right, firing arcs are bad on Alaska, I'll give it that. But come on, concealment of 12,4 is good enough to get in comfortable firing ranges. The shells are slow, not Atlanta or US DD rainbowy.

And then there's the whole accuracy difference I described.

Otherwise nice summary, aleksi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,032 posts
13,469 battles

Ah, so there's the issue: the overall handling is bad. Okay, I can understand that. Buffing the manoeuvrability and gun angles would be fine (possibly turret turn rate). That should make it a bit more fun.

I just really don't want it to get its guns buffed, as clearly they're already very potent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,465 posts
9,415 battles
10 hours ago, Toivia said:

Ah, so there's the issue: the overall handling is bad. Okay, I can understand that. Buffing the manoeuvrability and gun angles would be fine (possibly turret turn rate). That should make it a bit more fun.

I just really don't want it to get its guns buffed, as clearly they're already very potent.

I think a portion is not actually the Alaska being supposedly UP, but that many of the tech tree tier 9 ships are simply kinda bad.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,032 posts
13,469 battles

Yeah, no question about that. Poor Ibuki... I even citadelled it through the stern with Saint Louis the other week.

Well either way, I hope they don't go crazy with Alaska the way they did with Stalingrad. I'm fine with it getting more fun to play by tweaking the handling (after all I still intend to get the ship - it's the most beautiful US ship, in fact one of the very few beautiful US ships), but with the armor and guns being arguably better than Kron, those shouldn't get buffed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BS4]
Players
140 posts
8,870 battles
14 minutes ago, Toivia said:

I'm fine with it getting more fun to play by tweaking the handling...

...but with the armor and guns being arguably better than Kron,

 

I agree.

Getting access to improved auto-bonce angles is a huge advantage, not only against angled bow/belt, but also vs turtle-back armor scheme's.

Alaska has it's own advantages and weakness'es vs Kronshtadt, that just happens to be best peforming T9 ''cruiser'' by damage and WR

 

Judging by CC vid's Alaska might deserve some minor handling and quality-of life enhancements: (I'm really starting to sound like a broken recorder on a loop)

 

  • Rudder shift lowered to 12.5s from current 13.8s (10.0s with rudder mod.)
  • Improve firing angles, as long as they don't physically clip other parts of the ship
  • Slight drop in detection range, around 15km mark from the current 16.2km. It's absurd that Iowa/Missouri can get better stealth than Alaska (this is a tough spot, if Alaska's concealment gets over-buffed It will eat normal cruisers even harder)

 

Spoiler

Regarding Alaska's gun performance.

Just happened to look at detonator delay, fuze-arming and other numbers form WOWS fitting tool and happened to pay some attention to penetration numbers.

Having looked at Navweap's values for Alaska's guns earlier, something just felt off about them:

 

image.thumb.png.6c9f654f972007e7346a1af516c36fd2.png

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yellow: Navweaps data

Blue: WOWS fitting tool data

image.thumb.png.f5398c14b819a7952a4ddd26584aef2a.png

 

Now, I might have made a mistake when inputting the values to exel, or Fitting tool and Navweaps might simply be using different values, or the difference might be a result of something else I don't know.

Even still, the difference in penetration rogly between 10-12km is significant enough to matter when shooting against flat broadside Yamato/Mushashi citadel armor, just to give an example.

 

As such I'm asking for other's opinion on these pen values.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BS4]
Players
140 posts
8,870 battles

From some-interesting-info-around-the-world #5304

 

Untitled.png

 

Small, quality-of-life, changes for Alaska.

  • It seems that the ship is deemed fine and now they're fine tuning Alaska's characteristics to give it little more flexibility and enjoyability
  • I actually like the change to bring the fire duration in line with other Super-cruisers to 45s.
  • Firing angles improved, but how much is left unsaid. (going from CC vids, rear turret really doesn't have more than a few degrees, at most, room to improve, while the front 2 turrets had plenty of room to turn further in without hitting anything)

With 15.5km base detection the new max. stealth is 11.9km. A solid 500m improvement.

Bringing Alaska's concealment to 300m lower than Iowa/Missouri, while being 1.4km worse than Buffalo.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,032 posts
13,469 battles

Ok, I got confused by the wording for a sec...

With a second look, this should be fine. Yes, mostly very small buffs, but they should make the handling far more user friendly.

 

(Wow, needed some "not awful" news, announcement for a change.)

 

EDIT: Still funny how in the back of my head, I keep hearing the demands for some actual accuracy on the Kron. It's the only one in the bunch of "large cruisers" that gets BB dispersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BS4]
Players
140 posts
8,870 battles
Quote

Turret rotation speed increased from 5 to 6 degrees per second

 

Ehh, don't really know how to fell that particular buff to Alaska.

 

Historically, Alaska's turret traverse was 5 deg per second, and While the buff itself is welcome I would like values like turret traverse/reload/speed etc... to be as close to historical values on those ships that actually existed.

Furthermore I personally feel that WG should have first tested the changes to firing angle, concealment and that (slight) rudder shift. before touching the gun traverse speed

 

Now we have 4 separate changes tested simultaneously, all positively affecting the ships handling.

 

Now, even with the recent improvement to Alaska's concealment, I still think that it should be slightly improved, simply because the new 700m base detection advantage vs Iowa/Missouri comes down to only 300m due to how ''Concealment Expert'' captain skill works.

And due to render delay that 300m means next to nothing

(I'd happily trade that extra 1 degree per second turret traverse and that smoke firing ''buff'' for further 500-300m better base stealth, heck lower the Def AA consumables boost to +150-100% from the current +200% or reduce the Def AA/Hydo charges by 1 both to 2/1 for AA/hydro)

Spoiler

Current:

  Base concealment Max concealment
Iowa/Missouri 16.2km 12.2km
Alaska 15.5km 11.9km
Buffalo 13.6km 10.5km

 

Suggestion:

  Base concealment Max concealment
Iowa/Missouri 16.2km 12.2km
Alaska 15.0km 11.5km
Buffalo 13.6km 10.5km

 

There, Alaska would have workable 700m detection advantage vs Iowa/Missouri, a same tier BB that can overmatch it's armor.

Buffalo would maintain a 1000m Detection window against Alaska and thus in 1v1 situation have time to react when spotting Alaska and angle its' armor

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,032 posts
13,469 battles

I don't know about buffing the concealment more. Iowa/Missouri is a bit of an anomaly (excepting UK BBs) at Tier 9-10. Most BBs can get over 13kms at best (and a number won't even run Concealment expert).

I'd rather Alaska keeps the turret traverse buff than it getting even better concealment. Remember that Roon and Hindy get over 12kms (maybe Roon is slightly lower, not entirely sure now), same with Donskoi, Saint-Louis that is glass fragile against US AP gets 11.5kms.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BS4]
Players
140 posts
8,870 battles

Ran the concealment value numbers thru:

And I have to come to an agreement with you @Toivia, buffin Alaska's concealment does get a little iffy for ships like: Saint-Luis & Roon, particularly due to Alaska's improved auto-bounce angles.

Spoiler

image.thumb.png.6fd6e0e0c7b6176965cd3e80b0efde19.png

 

ps. color codes might contain a mistake

 

(how would I put this?)

I've noticed some posts on both EU & NA forums where the people claim that Alaska just isn't worth it when compared to Kron.

I disagree, and I'd like to see Alaska as a well balanced and fun to play ship with it's own strengths and weaknesses, not a total brain-dead super-ship.

 

I hope that WG managed to find a perfect mix of cons & pros for both ships to be fun, balanced (whatever that means), and viable.

Alaska having 27mm & 36mm plating, improved auto-bounce angles, actually good AA and now better stealth as advantages, while Kronshtadt gets superior gun handling (this is partially why i'm iffy about Alaska's turret traverse speed buff) and health pool, different radar and better dpm.

 

In short: I like that the ships have their own flavor, but I'm cautious on how Alaska fares in the current long-range/island IFHE spam meta with potentially 5x +406mm gun BB's per team, Kronshtadt at-least has the gun performance to stay effective at longer ranges.

 

addendum:

Spoiler

 

If Alaska would still need some tweaks or changes to make it different from Kronshtadt, how about giving it enlarged consumable loadout, but having -1 for most consumable uses: (aka Grozovoi treatment)

 

   
Damage Control party I & II Unlimited
Damage repair pary I & II x2 (x4) 
Defensive AA fire I & II x1 (x3)
Hydroacustic search I & II x1 (x3)
Surveillance Radar I & II / Fighter / Spotter x2 (x4)

(due to  Missouri having x2 (x4) radar uses I can't in anyway justify a reduction in Alaska's radar uses)

 

Alaska would thus have a shared characteristic with US Light-Cruisers of having Hydro, Def-AA at the same time, BUT in exchange Alaska would have -1 use of Dydro, and -2 use of Def AA.

Furthermore, Hydro and Def AA could be nerved so as to be more self defense orientated.

(reduce the hydro's range from 4.68km to 3.5km for ships / 3.27km to 2.8km for torps & and reduce def AA effect to +150% from +200%.)

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×