IX Alaska vs VII Scharnhorst

[Morning_Star_777]

As i have already 350 000 + xp on my Scharnhorst i decided to add here little comparison of this ship to IX Alaska.

 

VII Scharnhorst:

 

283 mm Guns - 3 main turrets - 9 guns in total.

Reload time: 20sec

180 turn time - 25sec

 

15 secondary guns

30 AA guns

2x Torpedo tubes

 

56 300 hp

solid armor as all German BBs

 

Main battery Range 19.9 km

Max speed 30 knots

 

IX Alaska:

 

305 mm Guns - 3 main turrets - 9 guns in total

Reload time: 20sec

180 turn time: 30 sec

 

6 secondary guns

54 AA guns

 

60 800 hp

solid armor like for cruiser but still weaker than Scharnhorst

Main battery Range 19.0 km

Max speed: 33 knots

 

Summarizing i would like to ask what's reasoning behind putting 1 000 000 free exp price tag on basically, more less IX Scharnhorst called Alaska?

 

Because IX Missouri US BB was only 750 000 free exp and that ship was so OP that it was worth it totally.

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Missouri

 

 

Is Alaska worth it too?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boris_MNE]

Before collecting 750k fxp is equal to collecting 2 or 3 milion today, with all those signals and camos floating around. Alaska is cheap.

 

Also, for me Alaska is worth (but that will end up as subjective opinion to each of us).

 

[ilhilh]

Wow. 'More or less a scharnhorst'.

 

I see your comparisons but you have got figures wrong (6 secondaries is actually 6 double mounts meaning 12) and straight up missed out many other differences such as Alaska having radar, defAA/hydro and improved AP pen angles with the super heavy shells.

[Colonel_Boom]

Missouri was only op because it had radar and a better armor layout compared to the Iowa. It was special because of the income.

 

I think that WG made a 100% profit oriented decision. I always laugh at the reasoning for taking ships out of the game.

 

MfG Boom

[kfa]

1. Alaska is free.

2. It stomps planes and DDs due to the consumables

3. Much more agile, can mount the Tier9 reload module and has a lot better AP penetration angles earns more money and has better accuracy.

[Oderisson]

Puting it like this you can bassically make any ship other than sharnhorst useless. Alaska has much better guns (dispersion, penetration, DPM). Is much more agile. Has consumables.

[GarrusBrutus]

Comparing apples and oranges.

Also:

 

Maybe reach tier 9 first? 

[ColonelPete]

13 minutes ago, Morning_Star_777 said:

As i have already 350 000 + xp on my Scharnhorst i decided to add here little comparison ...

Alaska is treated as a cruiser, not a BB. Therefore the comparison is wrong.

 

[kfa]

6 minutes ago, Boris_MNE said:

Before collecting 750k fxp is equal to collecting 2 or 3 milion today, with all those singlas and camos floating around. Alaska is cheap.

 

Its basicly free for playing 3-4 month casual random games.

It was a nice gesture from WG.

And the ship itself is fun as well.

[Morning_Star_777]

8 minut temu, Boris_MNE napisał:

Before collecting 750k fxp is equal to collecting 2 or 3 milion today, with all those signals and camos floating around. Alaska is cheap.

 

Also, for me Alaska is worth (but that will end up as subjective opinion to each of us).

 

 

4 minuty temu, ilhilh napisał:

Wow. 'More or less a scharnhorst'.

 

I see your comparisons but you have got figures wrong (6 secondaries is actually 6 double mounts meaning 12) and straight up missed out many other differences such as Alaska having radar, defAA/hydro and improved AP pen angles with the super heavy shells.

 

3 minuty temu, Colonel_Boom napisał:

Missouri was only op because it had radar and a better armor layout compared to the Iowa. It was special because of the income.

 

I think that WG made a 100% profit oriented decision. I always laugh at the reasoning for taking ships out of the game.

 

MfG Boom

 

2 minuty temu, kfa napisał:

1. Alaska is free.

2. It stomps planes and DDs due to the consumables

3. Much more agile, can mount the Tier9 reload module and has a lot better AP penetration angles earns more money and has better accuracy.

 

1 minutę temu, ColonelPete napisał:

Alaska is treated as a cruiser, not a BB. Therefore the comparison is wrong.

 

 

Wilco!

[Morning_Star_777]

1 minutę temu, GarrusBrutus napisał:

Comparing apples and oranges.

Also:

 

Maybe reach tier 9 first? 

 

my profile is not updating for some reason. I have like 3x more games. Need to send a ticket.

[OTECa1]

14 minutes ago, Morning_Star_777 said:

 

my profile is not updating for some reason. I have like 3x more games. Need to send a ticket.

[belalugosisdead]

12 minutes ago, Boris_MNE said:

Before collecting 750k fxp is equal to collecting 2 or 3 milion today, with all those signals and camos floating around. Alaska is cheap.

 

 

I completly agree. I made 60k free XP yesterday. So i need 40k more for Alaska, todays work.  Camos and Flags do the Job.  And i bought two free XP ships just because they left in the beginning of January. 

 

 

 

 

[Arakus]

I can punish a Scharnhorst with my Asashio torps but i can't torp a Alaska!

So there is a huge difference for me, atm when so much Alaska at ocean even more.....

Btw, Alaska has radar....

[puxflacet]

There is a big difference: Scharnhost will be always the ultimate brawler (secondaries + torpedos) while Alaska should rather avoid getting too close, especially to battleships with guns bigger than 380mm.

 

btw IRL the armor set them apart pretty decisively, because Alaska's armor was designed to deflect reliably only 203mm cruiser shells (old 305mm at best), while Scharnhorst's armor was able to withstand 380mm. But thanks to the low citadel+overmatch mechanic (27mm) Alaska is in this game definitely more durable than she should be.

 

[Affeks]

Alaska has far better dispersion, has better mobility characteristics (turning and accel), far better HE, better AP (and bounce) etc.

 

Either way you cant compare them on stats alone, just the same way any BB looks way better than any cruiser or DD before taking ship type specific traits into account.

[NothingButTheRain]

Too bad we can't test this vs bots in training room as both these ships are premiums 

[llHEROll]

well after seen this i want the alaska

 

[Yedwy]

Have both like both just where they are

[puxflacet]

1 hour ago, NothingButTheRain said:

Too bad we can't test this vs bots in training room as both these ships are premiums 

yeah. why cant there be premium  bots anyway?

another thing i dislike about the traning room is that all bot-ships are stock...top hull would make more sense but give us option to choose would be even better

[Miscommunication_dept]

These 60 sec fires are nasty when the enemy is a Wooster!

 

[HaachamaShipping]

1 hour ago, NothingButTheRain said:

Too bad we can't test this vs bots in training room as both these ships are premiums 

Test what? Alaska vs Scharnhorst? Assuming they both know how to play their ships, Alaska wins, as it has functional HE that doesn't care about Scharnhorst 50 mm plating. And if Scharnhorst is even just slightly broadside, it can fire AP for great effect, while Scharnhorst can't.

[ilhilh]

14 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

These 60 sec fires are nasty when the enemy is a Wooster!

 

Yea, I learned quickly that my DM captain without fire prevention is not suitable for the Alaska.

[Miscommunication_dept]

Do you use the ruddershift module? I might have to switch to dam con.

 

 

[ilhilh]

I went for dam con straight out of the box, but I think it warrants that and fire prevention.

 

Who knows, once the hype has down a bit they might be infrequent enough that you can get away with rudder, but when you end up with so many in a game, you often can end up just nose in to each other and then HE it is.