Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Jvd2000

Kronshtadt vs Alaska, your choice

Kronshtadt vs Alaska, which one is the better "cruiser"  

54 members have voted

  1. 1. Which one in the current Meta?

    • Kronshtadt
      17
    • Alaska
      37
  2. 2. Krohnshtadt vs Alaska - one vs one

    • Kronshtadt
      20
    • Alaska
      34

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SINT]
Players
269 posts
12,679 battles

Based on the information now available what will be your prefered pick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,904 posts
5,171 battles

I still think its hard to make a call. Im leaning towards Kronshtadt. But I always wanted to have Alaska in the game.

 

Depends also, which line you want to play / how your captains look like / what do you want to do in the future with the captains for those nations. I already have perfect captains for both of them, done with the russian Cruiser line and Alaska would be captained by Steven Seagull anyway. So for me it , they are both just ships for randoms to play with, not captain trainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
2,728 posts
9,874 battles

giphy.gif

 

That's the only answer. Both ships are good. I have my unique captains on them, in the Kronshtadt and the Alaska captain waiting in reserve for the ship to drop.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NED]
Players
1,573 posts
5,793 battles

Hard to say without having played the Alaska.

But it does seem to farm citadels easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC-DK]
Players
1,786 posts
22,478 battles

Going for Alaska... Krohnstahdt says me nothing just another fantasy ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOATY]
[BOATY]
Players
858 posts
3,869 battles

Neither. I don't play US CAs very often and I don't see how bigger guns with a longer reload is going to change that. Maybe I'll reconsider once I've finally got the DM but as that's always top tier and I have the FREEDOM! camo to go on it from the Sharks vs. Eagles arc, it'll probably satisfy a lot of my high-tier credit urges.

 

I was set on getting the Kronshtadt until the Stalingrad appeared, now it seems to be a lesser version of the tier 10 ship, much as the Mushy is to the Tomato. It'll take me a while to get enough steel for it, this is my first year playing ranked and clan battles but that's fine, it'll give me time to get some decent captain skills on Dasha. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
6,948 posts
9,129 battles

Without having played the Alaska (duh) I'd favour the Kronstadt for the current meta: better penetration overall is useful against all those BBs you see and better penetration at range plus better ballistics help engaging targets of all classes at the usual 15+ km. More HP and much better torpedo protection. Meh AA but even with the current rise in CVs around (probably trying to get a couple games in before it changes, like me) there's still not enough CV matches to say the better AA on the Alaska were a noteworthy advantage.

 

 

From a purely subjective gameplay fun perspective however I'd say the Alaska looks more fun.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-FF-]
Players
609 posts
5,414 battles
21 minutes ago, Cyanide_NL said:

I hate the dispersion on the Kron...

It's balanced by a high shell velocity and better pen values...

Ultimately I'd say both ships have pros and cons, and it's about what you prefer.

I have the Kron and I really enjoy playing with her. I don't have enough free exp to buy another battle cruiser but I'm not disappointed I didn't wait for Alaska. Kron is really strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,155 posts
1,373 battles

I'm more wondering whether the Alaska is worth it for someone that already has the Missouri as there is a lot of overlap there (both have radar, similar speeds, similar large targets).

 

Currently sitting at around 630k free XP, with all the signals, flags and boxes I seem to be getting a good 10-15k free XP from just 4-5 games so should hit the 750k fairly soon. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AXIS]
Beta Tester
3,912 posts
16,276 battles

Depends, if you have Stalingrad, Kronshtadt becomes obsolete because it is a worse Stalingrad with worse MM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,321 posts
13,604 battles

Weel, due to alleged "Russian bias" I suspect Kronshtadt might actually turn out to be the stronger ship in-game. But otherwise , since Alaska is the one that actually existed, I would still pick her for myself, if ever it came down to choices. I'm just funny that way. :cap_old:

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,052 posts
9,616 battles

Alaska actuall existed. Kronstadz didnt made it to the sea there is no contest. plus teh Ru techtree dont interest me much anyhow i hardly take out my chaba and im for over a year on Donskoi....while i hava all US Ships but Essex and Midway....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,033 posts
5,930 battles

I want to pick Alaska, but Kronstadt would be the obvious choice for me as I already have Missouri. I want Alaska as that ship has always been special to me, ever since I learned of its existence when I was a kid and I was reading about WW2.

 

I do like most of the paper ships, as I was also always a fan of "what if?" scenarios, but I can understand why some people may prefer ships that actually existed and sailed around :cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
3,160 posts
9,958 battles

Watched Flamu's latest vid on the Alaska .. seems more potato-proof than the KS (i.e. nigh impossible to hit the citadel at medium or short ranges).

No idea why someone would decide that this game needs more ships like this...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,155 posts
1,373 battles
1 hour ago, lup3s said:

Watched Flamu's latest vid on the Alaska .. seems more potato-proof than the KS (i.e. nigh impossible to hit the citadel at medium or short ranges).

No idea why someone would decide that this game needs more ships like this...

 I am not sure it's a major issue, it'll still get citadelled a lot and it's now got BB levels of fires as well. 

 

Plus it'll be able to get citadelled through the front and any high tier BB that scrathes that citadel roof will overmatch it. 

 

Basically don't brawl it, just gives the users a different tactic to use in limited scenarios. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEWD]
Players
298 posts

The recent underwater citadel meta is not helping to game imo. Bad players live long then necassary and reduce the chance of carrying the match by good players. Lasting potato means more HE spam and punishing to good players which use AP as opportunity rises. Eventually good player dies because of overpen BSs when broadsider noob burning him to death. 

 

As in latest Flamu video, Alaska can crap on Yama in close quarter and citadel him to death when all the Yama can do is hope RNGesus bless him and gives at least normal pen instead of overpens. GJ WG. ‘Slow claps’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
1,607 posts
5,047 battles

It's a bit academic for me, as I'll probably die of old age before getting enough steel for either, but I would prefer to get my hands on Alaska, for the same reason as several others - it was real, and sailed, and everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,155 posts
1,373 battles
10 minutes ago, Ebu34 said:

The recent underwater citadel meta is not helping to game imo. Bad players live long then necassary and reduce the chance of carrying the match by good players. Lasting potato means more HE spam and punishing to good players which use AP as opportunity rises. Eventually good player dies because of overpen BSs when broadsider noob burning him to death. 

 

As in latest Flamu video, Alaska can crap on Yama in close quarter and citadel him to death when all the Yama can do is hope RNGesus bless him and gives at least normal pen instead of overpens. GJ WG. ‘Slow claps’

 

Yeh but isn't that also a bit about knowing about your foes?

 

Potatos will still sail Alaska broadside at medium to long ranges and get punished, very few of them will take it in close anyway, it's a big cruiser with range, they'll stay at like 18-19km anyway.

 

Any good Yamato player will know not to take it on in a close range brawl, any good Yamato player knows anyway they are an easy citadel anyway, especially at close ranges so they shouldn't be doing that.

 

A good Alaska player in that situation will use it to his advantage in those limited situations. 

 

I don't really see why in that limited scenario a Yamato should just win because it's a Yamato against a Battlecruiser, the Yamato will beat it at pretty much every other range, so why not have that weakness when it's easy to play around it and avoid the situation? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEWD]
Players
298 posts
22 minutes ago, tajj7 said:

 

Yeh but isn't that also a bit about knowing about your foes?

 

Potatos will still sail Alaska broadside at medium to long ranges and get punished, very few of them will take it in close anyway, it's a big cruiser with range, they'll stay at like 18-19km anyway.

 

Any good Yamato player will know not to take it on in a close range brawl, any good Yamato player knows anyway they are an easy citadel anyway, especially at close ranges so they shouldn't be doing that.

 

A good Alaska player in that situation will use it to his advantage in those limited situations. 

 

I don't really see why in that limited scenario a Yamato should just win because it's a Yamato against a Battlecruiser, the Yamato will beat it at pretty much every other range, so why not have that weakness when it's easy to play around it and avoid the situation? 

 

Then any good player with Alaska know that and try to brawl at close range. As a result Alaska has speed advantage. 10km range is i think enough to pen Yama cheeky citadel with Alaska. Without fast BB you have less chance to avoid close quarter skirmishes if your opponent wants to brawl. Turning means more chance to get citadel hits. If it was not true there wasnt bow on meta in the game. Btw Flamu video was one of my arguments not the all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,155 posts
1,373 battles
2 minutes ago, Ebu34 said:

 

Then any good player with Alaska know that and try to brawl at close range. As a result Alaska has speed advantage. 10km range is i think enough to pen Yama cheeky citadel with Alaska. Without fast BB you have less chance to avoid close quarter skirmishes if your opponent wants to brawl. Turning means more chance to get citadel hits. If it was not true there wasnt bow on meta in the game. Btw Flamu video was one of my arguments not the all. 

Alaska is hardly that fast, it's 33 knots and if it starts closing you at range it'll get damaged a lot, probably citadelled through the front anyway and it's HE DPM is atrocious so a Yamato will damage it to the point where even if it gets close it will have lost so much HP the move was pointless.

 

It's very difficult to force people to brawl on such big open maps, usually such scenarios more happen by accident not planned and hardly like the Yamato doesn't have massive advantages over it in multiple areas. 

 

I still see no particular issue that at very close range a battlecruiser has a clear advantage over a medium to long range BB that has all the advantages at those other ranges. 

 

Play Yamato, see Alaska, don't get ambushed by it, what exactly is the problem? If you do, then you got outplayed, someone used the strengths of their ship against the weakness of yours.  Most other tier 9 and 10 BBs are fast enough to keep Alaska at arms length, where it's got cruiser armour they overmatch and it's poor HE DPM makes it not much of a threat. 

 

It also gives Alaska a clear advantage over the Kronstadt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RO-RN]
Players
143 posts
4,333 battles

alaska is the better boat. no huge citatell, no super-trash roma syndrome accuracy, better ricochet angles this is a very big advantage, better concealment and better aa. oh and 27 bow and stern armor so you wont fear head on any ship using 380mm guns and a 36 mm deck armor is quite nice, if i am not wrong here you can slot hydro istead of defensive fire if you want. and kronstatd gets better velocity and little bit better penetration... yeah useful with that tragic dispersion that lets you hit the sky and the water all the times, your armor is 25mm all around most bbs and he shells will wreck you and you also have a little bit of high citatell, you can not slot hydro, your concealment is worse as well as the ruddershift , also no improved ricochet angles cruisers angle a bit and you get only shatters and ricochets ( if you did hit them with that dispersion). this ship just needs to have the same accuracy as alaska and maybe 50 degrees of improved ricochet angles. but they should buff other t9 cruisers as well like ibuki i dont hear good about her and friederich de grosse ( german t9 bb). alaska is clearly the better boat here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×