How good is the Alaska

[Cadelanne]

I'm finding myself with 1 100 000 free XP so I thought "let's get the Missouri".

 

Unfortunatly it seems that the Missouri isn't for sale anymore. It's "replaced" by the Alaska. It looks like a fun ship, 305mm guns on a cruiser are no joke I suppose. However, I'm not so much of a cruiser player. Do you think it's a worth investment ? Is the Alaska a good ship in your opinion ? Is it as good at printing credits as the Missouri was ?

[Panocek]

12 minutes ago, Cadelanne said:

I'm finding myself with 1 100 000 free XP so I thought "let's get the Missouri".

 

Unfortunatly it seems that the Missouri isn't for sale anymore. It's "replaced" by the Alaska. It looks like a fun ship, 305mm guns on a cruiser are no joke I suppose. However, I'm not so much of a cruiser player. Do you think it's a worth investment ? Is the Alaska a good ship in your opinion ? Is it as good at printing credits as the Missouri was ?

Missouri is unavailable for over a year by now, replaced by Musashi which is gone as well.

 

Alaska is okay ship, being basically a battlecruiser she combines flaws of both worlds, while offering 305mm guns in cruiser MM slot. Which aren't that great, as only thing you can overmatch are UK CLs, reload is on slow end while penetration is inadequate to handle main BB belts at most combat ranges, even more so if BB is somewhat angled, unlike Kronshtadt which has come and gone as well.

 

Credit printing wise, nothing beats Missouri, with later T9 Freemiums being only slightly better than purchasable T8 premiums

 

If you want historical, made in steel warboat, I guess you won't go too wrong with her, though compared to previous Freemiums she is surprisingly average-to-solid in most aspects without extreme hp, guns, armor or whatnot compensated by equally extreme lack of AA/secondaries/whatever.

[veslingr]

22 minutes ago, Cadelanne said:

I'm finding myself with 1 100 000 free XP so I thought "let's get the Missouri".

 

Unfortunatly it seems that the Missouri isn't for sale anymore. It's "replaced" by the Alaska. It looks like a fun ship, 305mm guns on a cruiser are no joke I suppose. However, I'm not so much of a cruiser player. Do you think it's a worth investment ? Is the Alaska a good ship in your opinion ? Is it as good at printing credits as the Missouri was ?

not impressed with her.....to big to iceland humping, to bad arc for long range engagements, to low pen to citadel BBs (like Kronstad)....so i would say she is worst t9 premium

[Cadelanne]

And what about the Nelson ?

 

 

[veslingr]

1 minute ago, Cadelanne said:

And what about the Nelson ?

 

 

very very good ship, not that easy (big citadel) but zomby heal and mighty guns on t7...

[Mikhail800]

3 minutes ago, Cadelanne said:

And what about the Nelson ?

 

 

Nelson is the beast on his tier. Conq on Tier 7. Alaska is hard to play. Always fire...weak gun angles...

[Panocek]

10 minutes ago, Cadelanne said:

And what about the Nelson ?

 

 

Solid T7 BB, very fun I'd say with clearly defined strengths and weaknesses and can be used in tier 7 Operations, which as of now is only Narai.

3x3 406mm at tier 7, even if "weak" Brit AP is still brutal and for stubborn targets you have equally British HE. Citadel is sticking out so broadsides are punished, while 32mm amidship enables you to ricochet BB AP with exception of Yamato class. Improved Brit heal, or rather 3d printer on board enables you to recover A LOT of hp in one go, but its reload is lengthy, so you must pick fights carefully.

[NothingButTheRain]

36 minutes ago, Cadelanne said:

I'm finding myself with 1 100 000 free XP so I thought "let's get the Missouri".

 

Unfortunatly it seems that the Missouri isn't for sale anymore. It's "replaced" by the Alaska. It looks like a fun ship, 305mm guns on a cruiser are no joke I suppose. However, I'm not so much of a cruiser player. Do you think it's a worth investment ? Is the Alaska a good ship in your opinion ? Is it as good at printing credits as the Missouri was ?

It's kinda a shame you didn't get Musashi (or perhaps Kronstadt). It was cheaper at 750k fxp and it would've been a better choice conpared to Alaska.

 

I don't think Alaska is a bad ship by itself, but BBs are more consistent (but harder to carry games in) and Musashi would've net you a bit more credits compared to nelson.

 

Nelson is ok I guess. It has some great advantages along with some major weaknesses. It will come down to what you like.

 

Footnote is that Nelson can be played in ops, which adds a lil bit of extra taste to the Nelson. Personally I tend to prefer DoY since it's more of a traditional battleship, even though DoY is not really superstrong at her tier or something.

[gbgroger]

WG has done a good job with this one and it feels quite different from the kronstadt.

 

It has a high skill requirement though but you can carry in the right situations and most of the times its a fun ship to play.

[Cadelanne]

Well reading you I guess that Alaska isn't really worth the 1M free XP so I'll probably wait the next freemium.

[NothingButTheRain]

3 minutes ago, Cadelanne said:

Well reading you I guess that Alaska isn't really worth the 1M free XP so I'll probably wait the next freemium.

You may want to think twice about getting Azuma in case the Azuma stays the way it is atm 

[gbgroger]

8 minutes ago, Cadelanne said:

Well reading you I guess that Alaska isn't really worth the 1M free XP so I'll probably wait the next freemium.

If you put in good effort is a fun and good ship. Like a des moins on sterioids. If you like strong cruisers go for it.

[Donar79]

1 hour ago, Cadelanne said:

I'm finding myself with 1 100 000 free XP so I thought "let's get the Missouri".

 

Unfortunatly it seems that the Missouri isn't for sale anymore. It's "replaced" by the Alaska. It looks like a fun ship, 305mm guns on a cruiser are no joke I suppose. However, I'm not so much of a cruiser player. Do you think it's a worth investment ? Is the Alaska a good ship in your opinion ? Is it as good at printing credits as the Missouri was ?

Missi got replaced by Kronshtadt and Musashi, Kron and Mushi got replaced by Alaska (and soon™ Azuma?) So much there for . As u said already you are not that of a cruiser main so you might have your difficulties to make her work. As mentioned some posts above not the lowest skill barrier. But u asked for opinions. In my humble opinion absolutely worth the investment. I think she is a good ship and can be excellent if u make her work (didn't achieved that so far:). Nothing is printing Creds like a Missi . If u have decent games she is giving good credits like other T9 Prems (Kron, Mushi)

[lafeel]

1 hour ago, veslingr said:

not impressed with her.....to big to iceland humping, to bad arc for long range engagements, to low pen to citadel BBs (like Kronstad)....so i would say she is worst t9 premium

Iceland humping? Go find your own island to hump, no need to hump mine ;P

[Amon_ITA]

Don't have many games in her but i like Alaska.

 

It's nice to help your DD's making enemy cruisers disappear ( or die trying to ) from the caps.

[HaachamaShipping]

Alaska is a solid ship. Not OP, but certainly not weak. Is it worth 1 million free exp? Up to the individual. I bought her for free exp (and one credit) when she came out and I regret it not one bit. Alaska lacks the dpm of proper cruisers, but gets the alpha to punish enemy mistakes. In a way, if you ever played Graf Spee, Alaska is a lot like that. Unlike the Russian supercruisers, Alaska lacks some pen, which doesn't mean she has terrible pen. It's just not good enough to reliably get through BBs at range (it still craps on most normal cruisers), but you can get good results in a brawl. Unlike the Kronshtadt (and unlike BBs with bad pen like PEF), the Alaska gets USN CA ricochet angles though, so you can get pretty reliable results at close to mid range with your American super-heavy AP. Also, as you don't suffer from Kronshtadt's dispersion that is all over the place, Alaska at least hits often enough to start nice fires on BBs. The ship rewards proper ammo choice, which is a good thing, but both ammunition types are useful and overall, despite the sometimes lacking pen, I consider the guns solid all-round.

 

What Alaska brings to the table aside from somewhat different gunnery is survivability though. Frankly, Alaska is the tankiest cruiser aside from a dug in Stalingrad/Moskva. The submerged citadel is not fool-proof, but for a cruiser, it's absolutely incredible. BBs will hit the citadel at times, but typically cruisers won't. Supercruisers can, but any cruiser below that has a very hard time. at mid to long-range, the armour belt is too thick for CAs and as soon as they have enough pen, the citadel is too low in the water and any attempt to aim for it will either go above the citadel, into the water or ricochet off the citadel deck. American CAs can get unreliable citadels (in training room it was like 3 in 60+ hits) due to improved ricochet angles, but anything else has a hard time (Mino also has improved angles, but needs to get way too close to even get through the belt). So, against cruisers, if Alaska doesn't get torped, it can be insane. additionally, the ship backs up this citadel strength with 27 mm extremities plating, meaning 38 cm gun ships won't get any significant AP damage in on angled alaska (in contrast to Kronshtadt) and the deck is a solid 36 mm, akin to USN BBs, so most HE spam actually becomes a bit of a joke (not dissimilar to Stalingrad when HE spammed from range). Fires last longer, but not taking the pen damage certainly is a better deal, imo.

 

That is not to say alaska can just pick fights nilly-willy and expect to get away with it. While the survivability is certainly making the ship quite comfortable to play (not getting oneshot like some Nep, Seattle or Donskoi), properly angled DPM cruisers that don't present you a flank to shoot at will get you down and BBs can dish out hurt if they know how to play around you. Just like good old Spee. Thus, it isn't some power pick, imo. But I certainly don't feel like I'm playing a weak ship and I have a ton of fun. And in that sense, I kind of deem it more worthwhile than something almost blatantly OP like Musashi, which is powerful, but which I find much more stale. 

[Corvi]

Not very good. 

 

It feels like you are either missing or overpenning. You gotta taken that ship very close if you want to hit something, on the other hand you only gonna overpen if you get that close. I’d give it a „Meh“ rating. Played more exiting ships ..

[elblancogringo]

12 hours ago, Cadelanne said:

And what about the Nelson ?

 

 

I love the Nelson. If you take it, you will still have a lot of free exp for the next freemium, and it's really a monster at tier 7.

[Varian_Dorn]

In my opinion Alaska is awesome. She's the Missouri of cruisers, so to speak. She is very robust for a cruiser and packs a punch even battleships have to be concerned about. She has a few nice tools at her disposal and can be tuned to anti-air support, destroyer hunting or a combination of skills and consumables. She's fast and manuverable for a ship that big.

 

BUT!

 

She requires a certain mix between patience, cunning and aggression to make her work properly. Overextend and you will get punished fast, stay at the far end of her firing range too long and you cant fully bring her power into the fight. She's a team player, don't go solo early in the match unless you have a plan. A plan that involves cover and or her solid concealment, if properly specced of course.

 

In short, Alaska is a powerful ship. IF you know how to walk the line between being careful and being aggressive.

[HaachamaShipping]

22 hours ago, Panocek said:

Missouri is unavailable for over a year by now, replaced by Musashi which is gone as well.

 

Alaska is okay ship, being basically a battlecruiser she combines flaws of both worlds, while offering 305mm guns in cruiser MM slot. Which aren't that great, as only thing you can overmatch are UK CLs, reload is on slow end while penetration is inadequate to handle main BB belts at most combat ranges, even more so if BB is somewhat angled, unlike Kronshtadt which has come and gone as well.

 

Credit printing wise, nothing beats Missouri, with later T9 Freemiums being only slightly better than purchasable T8 premiums

 

If you want historical, made in steel warboat, I guess you won't go too wrong with her, though compared to previous Freemiums she is surprisingly average-to-solid in most aspects without extreme hp, guns, armor or whatnot compensated by equally extreme lack of AA/secondaries/whatever.

Isn't it nice to get a ship that is solid and not OP, a ship that has its niche in performance and doesn't just replace the Buffalo or powercreep the Kronshtadt? I mean, yes, it's 1 million free exp, but frankly, you get a decent ship for it and I take that over Azuma or skipping an entire line worth of ships.

 

Basically, Alaska is...

Spoiler

22 hours ago, veslingr said:

not impressed with her.....to big to iceland humping, to bad arc for long range engagements, to low pen to citadel BBs (like Kronstad)....so i would say she is worst t9 premium

Island humping is for ships that lack survivability but need to stay close. Alaska is the most survivable cruiser and can fall back to its 19 km range if it really has to. If you think this is another island humping design, then you are mistaken, Alaska can roam and should switch between mid-range against manageable threats and long-range HE for when you first need to clear out some.

 

Though, Alaska can hump islands if you find a right-sized island. 

22 hours ago, Cadelanne said:

And what about the Nelson ?

 

 

Nelson is a good ship. The guns and heal are great. Tbf though, I find myself play the Hood more, because it feels more comfortable. Nelson is worth her free exp, but frankly, it's not really the competition to Alaska.

22 hours ago, NothingButTheRain said:

It's kinda a shame you didn't get Musashi (or perhaps Kronstadt). It was cheaper at 750k fxp and it would've been a better choice conpared to Alaska.

 

I don't think Alaska is a bad ship by itself, but BBs are more consistent (but harder to carry games in) and Musashi would've net you a bit more credits compared to nelson.

My Alaska is quite consistent. The only reason Musashi could be better is if its true that Alaska has worse credit earning multiplier. But I don't run tests on that and purely from gameplay perspective, Alaska is neither inconsistent in the results it brings, nor is it just a gimped Yamato.

12 hours ago, Corvi said:

Not very good. 

 

It feels like you are either missing or overpenning. You gotta taken that ship very close if you want to hit something, on the other hand you only gonna overpen if you get that close. I’d give it a „Meh“ rating. Played more exiting ships ..

It is hard to rate subjective impressions like excitement (e.g. my own for Musashi is rather limited, even if it is a good ship, while others might find it more interesting), but performance-wise, even your own performance in Alaska does not suggest a "meh" rating and doesn't paint the impression of only overpens (#20 in your number of ships on average damage) or misses (41% main battery hit ratio).

[Panocek]

19 minutes ago, Seiranko said:

Isn't it nice to get a ship that is solid and not OP, a ship that has its niche in performance and doesn't just replace the Buffalo or powercreep the Kronshtadt? I mean, yes, it's 1 million free exp, but frankly, you get a decent ship for it and I take that over Azuma or skipping an entire line worth of ships.

 

Basically, Alaska is...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Balanced in unbalanced world isn't really that good

[Procrastes]

14 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Balanced in unbalanced world isn't really that good

It is if you look to the future of the game.

Wargaming seems to be trying to come to grips with a previous tendency to push out premium ships that were, just maybe, a bit too powerful to fit in comfortably with the silver competition. The Alaska (and the Wichita, for that matter), is a step in the right direction.

[Panocek]

1 minute ago, Procrastes said:

It is if you look to the future of the game.

Wargaming seems to be trying to come to grips with a previous tendency to push out premium ships that were, just maybe, a bit too powerful to fit in comfortably with the silver competition. The Alaska (and the Wichita, for that matter), is a step in the right direction.

So was Prinz Eugen... two years ago? You can't get any more balanced than literally copy/pasting existing ship and I'm not so sure pudding was "commercial success", although production time was short I guess.

[HaachamaShipping]

21 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Balanced in unbalanced world isn't really that good

The Alaska is perfectly competitive at T9, so, I have no idea how it "isn't really that good".

[Panocek]

1 minute ago, Seiranko said:

The Alaska is perfectly competitive at T9, so, I have no idea how it "isn't really that good".

Is she viable? Yes. Does she have hardcore gimmick like Kron, Moosashi or Missouri making her stand out of the crowd for good or ill? Not really.