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

Alaska or Georgia?

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[CU]
Beta Tester
4 posts
4,285 battles

Which would you prefer to have on your team? An Alaska takes up a cruiser slot and basically brings a small BB to the table (tankwise), not bad firepower and radar. Georgia takes up a battleship slot and brings speed, secondaries and decent guns (but low dpm).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRK3N]
[GRK3N]
Players
1,171 posts
6,283 battles

Impossible to say since it depends on what its replacing in the enemy team. If theres no CV Id rather have a Musashi in my team than a Georgia, if there was Id rather have a Missouri. Althou Alaska is probably better than most tier 9 cruisers so most likely Alaska is the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
9,428 posts
8,803 battles

Id go with Alaska. Its better than other T9 cruisers. While i see Georgia not being better than most T9 BBs, especially not the premium ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,059 posts
8,879 battles

Depends on player in the ship. Both are good ships at their tiers with potential if played to their strengths. In randoms, I really wouldn't care. Only in stuff like T9 Ranked, Alaska is a better choice imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
2 hours ago, Bakaban said:

Which would you prefer to have on your team? An Alaska takes up a cruiser slot and basically brings a small BB to the table (tankwise), not bad firepower and radar. Georgia takes up a battleship slot and brings speed, secondaries and decent guns (but low dpm).

 

 

Georgia. 

 

Alaska is just bad in thing she should do. With USA arcs she can not engage ships at max range. She is to big to play as USA cruisers and use islansd to advantage and to control caps with radar. 

 

On other hand Gorgia in good captain hands is devastating. Its cruiser dispersion just eats ships alive if captain knows how to position and do crossfire.  It has speed needed for good crossfire positioning. 

 

Kronstad is much better ship than Alaska in things what Alaska should do. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,059 posts
8,879 battles
48 minutes ago, veslingr said:

Georgia. 

 

Alaska is just bad in thing she should do. With USA arcs she can not engage ships at max range. She is to big to play as USA cruisers and use islansd to advantage and to control caps with radar. 

 

On other hand Gorgia in good captain hands is devastating. Its cruiser dispersion just eats ships alive if captain knows how to position and do crossfire.  It has speed needed for good crossfire positioning. 

 

Kronstad is much better ship than Alaska in things what Alaska should do. 

Alaska is a mid-range ship, not a long range ship. And it does rather well at mid-range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Players
2,818 posts
10,909 battles
55 minutes ago, veslingr said:

On other hand Gorgia in good captain hands is devastating. Its cruiser dispersion...

Battlecruiser dispersion

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
2 minutes ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

Alaska is a mid-range ship, not a long range ship. And it does rather well at mid-range.

I know. But in competitive enviroment she can not sit in midrange on open as none of cruisers can. She can not kite like RU or German ones due to arc or use cover as RN or USA. 

 

In midrange she just can not tank dmg or easily disengage due to large detection. 

 

Large ship and bad arcs = noncompetitive ship. 

 

For fun tou can play whatever you want. For competitive Georgia is much stronger ship because she has usable role where Alaska does not. 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
5 minutes ago, B0Tato said:

Battlecruiser dispersion

There are no batlecruiser class and for instance Kronstad and ijn t9 ship have no near similar dispersion even we would say they are battle cruisers. So you can not say gorgia has batlecruiser dispersion because he's dispersion is better than Kronstat for instance. 

 

For BBs she has very very precise guns that on broadside doe more dmg than any other t 9 bbs due to  precision even having only 6 guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Players
2,818 posts
10,909 battles
3 hours ago, veslingr said:

There are no batlecruiser class and for instance Kronstad and ijn t9 ship have no near similar dispersion even we would say they are battle cruisers. So you can not say gorgia has batlecruiser dispersion because he's dispersion is better than Kronstat for instance. 

 

For BBs she has very very precise guns that on broadside doe more dmg than any other t 9 bbs director precision even having only 6 guns. 

Okay, I will specify...

Georgia uses the the same dispersion formula for maximum dispersion as Graf Spee, Alaska and Stalingrad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
5 minutes ago, B0Tato said:

Okay, I will specify...

Georgia uses the the same dispersion formula as Graf Spee, Alaska and Stalingrad.

Are you sure? I do not see "batlecruiser" disperzion on Staljingrad. I see laser precise guns :) 

 

well if it has stalingrad dispersion there are no question which ship is better :) 

 

I pitty fools that will be target of Georgia tx father if he retains this kind of dispersion:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,363 posts
13,020 battles

According to LWM the Alaska is a T8 BB (battlecruiser)  artificially stuck in aT9 Cruiser role......A bit like making the T7 BB Scharnhorst a T8 Cruiser.....

 

I kept that in mind and i do somewhat recognise such a view on things.....

 

Since it can and would face Tier X ships anyway if it were a tier 8 BB it would not make much difference, but WG ofcourse balances ( nerfs ) stuff to fit specific tiers and classes  probably clipped much of its potential power because it is a "Cruiser" now and not a "battlecruiser" which is a BB in WG designation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,754 posts
245 battles
1 hour ago, B0Tato said:

Battlecruiser dispersion

you can get dispersion under 200m's, sigma is meh though, its not as accurate as people think it is, you will miss quite a few shots too be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,972 posts
7,324 battles
2 hours ago, veslingr said:

I know. But in competitive enviroment she can not sit in midrange on open as none of cruisers can. She can not kite like RU or German ones due to arc or use cover as RN or USA. 

 

In midrange she just can not tank dmg or easily disengage due to large detection. 

 

Large ship and bad arcs = noncompetitive ship. 

 

For fun tou can play whatever you want. For competitive Georgia is much stronger ship because she has usable role where Alaska does not. 

 

 

That's not really relevant.

 

What you should ask yourself is : "is that ship an equivalent to other tier 9 cruiser" And yes, she is as good as them. AP are great, HE does the job and the ship is very tanky for a cruiser while still having decent concealment.
I find Alaska less extreme than Kronshtadt overall and that's not a bad thing.

 

Kronshtadt scales better with a skilled player than Alaska : it's only tanky when you bait shot in the belt, guns are good but wonky dispersion and no improved angle means good positioning. However Alaska is pretty nice to play as it has no real and easily exploitable weaknesses IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
7 minutes ago, ShinGetsu said:

That's not really relevant.

 

What you should ask yourself is : "is that ship an equivalent to other tier 9 cruiser" And yes, she is as good as them. AP are great, HE does the job and the ship is very tanky for a cruiser while still having decent concealment.
I find Alaska less extreme than Kronshtadt overall and that's not a bad thing.

Problem is that Alaska is Jack of all trade master of none. She is not kitter due to bad arc, she is not radar ship due to big size and bad stealth values. For any serious play I would use cruiser radar spot fill with USA cruiser or even RU due to longer radar, or for kitter I would use FR or IJN ones. I would just not use this ship that has no specific role that is needed in serious play. 

 

On other hand I would find place for gorgia as crossfire bbs. Because it has something other bbs on t9 does not have. Great precision. 

 

All this does not meant Alaska is bad ship. I just dont find space for it that easily as for Georgia. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
9,428 posts
8,803 battles
11 minutes ago, NoobySkooby said:

So Georgia aside, how does the Alaska stack up against the Kronstadt?

 

So wish I had not spent my coal on the Salem.

 

Personaly i prefer Alaska, the dispersion feels better. Which is weird, since i have both more damage and hitrate in Kron compared to Alaska :Smile_teethhappy:

But i put that down on the different gun characteristics. Alaska slow shells, so you miss more if you aim badly. Kron has easier time hitting stuff because of railguns, but it feels like you miss more, since you will always have shells going left and right.

Alaska is a bit more tanky. I agree with @ShinGetsu on that one, its harder to punish an Alaska. And if you have lucky MM, Alaska can bowtank lower caliber BBs, while Kron can only bounce Lyon/KGV/DOY/Scharnhorst.

And ofc Alaska has much better AA, which is good these days.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Players
2,818 posts
10,909 battles
18 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

while Kron can only bounce Lyon/KGV/DOY/Scharnhorst.

High explosives don't bounce. :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,268 posts
14,049 battles
2 hours ago, veslingr said:

Are you sure? I do not see "batlecruiser" disperzion on Staljingrad. I see laser precise guns :) 

 

well if it has stalingrad dispersion there are no question which ship is better :) 

 

I pitty fools that will be target of Georgia tx father if he retains this kind of dispersion:)

 

Stalingrad has the same dispersion, but 2.65 sigma, while Georgia only has 1.8 sigma. 

 

And yes, it is no "cruiser dispersion", it sits between BBs and cruisers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Players
2,818 posts
10,909 battles
39 minutes ago, __Helmut_Kohl__ said:

 

Stalingrad has the same dispersion, but 2.65 sigma, while Georgia only has 1.8 sigma. 

 

And yes, it is no "cruiser dispersion", it sits between BBs and cruisers. 

Yep, I was talking about the formula for maximum dispersion. Should've made that clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
1 hour ago, __Helmut_Kohl__ said:

 

Stalingrad has the same dispersion, but 2.65 sigma, while Georgia only has 1.8 sigma. 

 

And yes, it is no "cruiser dispersion", it sits between BBs and cruisers. 

I agree with you. But in game farma as we have DD, CV, BB and Cruisers her guns are sharing cruisers (some of them ) dispersion because Stalingrad, Alaska and Spee are cruisers in official game classification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MORIA]
Players
7,285 posts
35,860 battles

Georgia is more fun than Alaska. Though Alaska is for free exp and Georgia for coal. Imho Georgia is more worth the money than Alaska if you wanna buy for real money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,178 posts
12,633 battles

Depends on impact. Alaska has quite a good impact for a cruiser. Georgia i dont know 6 guns even while acurate with low vel Ap shells is somewhat contered by her speed but would i take her over any even techtree t9BB the way i certainly would take Alaska over any techtree cruiser (on the same tir)? nah...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×