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

Azuma vs Alaska

44 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
257 posts
8,222 battles

Well, as I understand Azuma is the Japanese counterpart to Alaska. Both Super-cruisers are tier IX, both cost 1M free XP.  But only one its a real super-cruiser.

 

Alaska its just amazing and fun. Good guns, good armor, very very difficult to citadel, fast, not bad turning, Good TT, Radar, Hydro. Good AA. Extremely versatile.  I love this ship. 

 

Azuma, have great guns... terrible TT, extremely extremely squishy, even angled or bow in. Same Speed as Alaska, worst turning, easy to citadel, no radar, Good AA(but seems less effective than Alaska) Both similar concealment. U are huge, if they want to hit u they will hit u. I think its too situational ship. 

 

Why i so big gap?

 

U see a lot of Alaskas in battle almost never u see Azumas. I think Azuma don't have bad statistics because very few people play and are mostly very very veterans players. But IMO Alaska have the upper-hand in almost all departments. 

 

I don't own Yoshino(seems a better Azuma but a tier higher) but a lot of people told me that Alaska in tier X its a better ship than even Yoshino.

 

Maybe to give at least to Azuma same armour as Yoshino? 

 

Whats your opinion?

 

thanks in advance. 

 

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SKRUB]
Players
555 posts
21,846 battles

What is a "real super cruiser" for you ?

Because i don't think Azuma is the "worst" T9 cruiser...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PANEU]
Players
1,009 posts
3,030 battles

The playstyle of those ships are completely different. If you play an Alaska like an azuma (long range HE spam) Alaska won't be effective. On the other hand if you play azuma as a 12km Cruiser killer it won't be effective. Each ship has a different role where it's good at. You can't really compare them in the same role... 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
2,939 posts
12,673 battles

The Azuma is a great long range HE spammer, one of the best.

The Alaska is strong against everything and even has decent armour.

 

Alaska is a much better ship.

 

Kronstadt between the two.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
257 posts
8,222 battles
31 minutes ago, Lebedjev said:

What is a "real super cruiser" for you ?

Because i don't think Azuma is the "worst" T9 cruiser...

The Supercruisers are Stalingrad, Yoshino, Puerto Rico, Alaska, Azuma and Kronstadt. Of the Supercruisers Azuma I think is the worst. And you can see almost anybody play it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles

Alaska beats Azuma, most of all because it is more flexible. But that shouldn't be surprising. Most of it is down to Alaska having a radar, Azuma not. Azuma thus will always be a long-range specialist at T9 and if that doesn't work out, well, sucks. One cyclone can ruin your game.

 

Alaska vs Yoshino is a different story. Tier for tier, the Alaska is better, because it is just an incredibly strong T9 cruiser (begging the question whether Alaska isn't just a bit too strong, not Azuma too weak), but in absolute terms, the Yoshino is not worse. Yoshino needs more brain (just like Azuma), because if you mess up, you are free cits, but Yoshino beats Alaska in range, dpm (especially HE dpm) and accuracy, making it a much stronger ship to take on any BB or cruiser at range, provided the enemy isn't just broadsiding like a moron. Yoshino's torpedo armament most of the time is 20 km memes, but should you be forced to go in, it at least gives you some genuine strength to leverage - even just firing the forward launcher of a side is 4 torps at over 20k damage each and you can launch at ranges where concealment does not matter. Admittedly, the Yoshino has to be far more careful about its citadel, but it can actually beat most BBs if it can pull it off, an Alaska matched against some of the troll citadels like German BB or French BB might easily get absolutely wrecked at close range, just because these ships outtank it, no BB outtanks two spreads of Yoshino torps.

 

Also, Azuma and Yoshino will deal better (in Yoshino's case much better) when dealing with angled cruisers, especially supercruisers, where the Alaska would need to resort to HE. Alaska can be HE spammed down by most cruisers who mind their distance and angle inbetween salvos, while the increased accuracy and dpm of the Japanese means that's far less viable against them. A smart Yoshino can reliably beat any other supercruiser and can be a pain to other cruisers, Alaska can meanwhile run into issues if matched against stuff like Stalingrad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
257 posts
8,222 battles

image.thumb.png.6442b2a3781bbc1289313a3636bdfeee.png

 

Only Drake ( a very new ship have less battles). Alaska+Alaska B almost 5 times more popular. And released at the same time... I mean the ships its only good in one situation. And if they don't pay a lot of attention to you. Yoshino doesn't seems very strong buy at least not extremely weak. Just Ok. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
10 minutes ago, Furius_Marius said:

Only Drake ( a very new ship have less battles). Alaska+Alaska B almost 5 times more popular. And released at the same time... I mean the ships its only good in one situation. And if they don't pay a lot of attention to you. Yoshino doesn't seems very strong buy at least not extremely weak. Just Ok. 

Azuma has garbage player numbers, because you got tons of players like me, who wouldn't ever bother with Azuma, not because Azuma is garbage, but because Yoshino exists. Unlike the Musashi, Azuma didn't just lose AA that noone cares about and the prospect of maybe fighting T7s isn't as compelling as with Musashi. Getting Azuma is wasting 1 million free exp on a ship I can as well play already, but with torps.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOBS3]
Players
1,016 posts
19,982 battles

I don't have the Azuma, but I do have both the Alaska and the Yoshino. 

While the Yoshino isn't a bad ship, she isn't anything special. Stand off and spam HE and torpedoes if there aren't friendlies in the line of fire.

Alaska, on the other hand, is a stonking good cruiser that can spam HE at the beginning of the match, maybe not as far as the Yoshino can, but mid match onwards she can close and eliminate the opposition. Just as happy in T10 matches as T9.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,208 posts
11,990 battles

First, I'd say Alaska is too strong for her tier, having both radar utility, improved AP and survivability from 27mm plating and underwater citadel.

 

Azuma/Yoshino are, pretty much purpose build long range HE slingers - good long range accuracy (by CB standards), potent HE and exposed citadel, punishing any ideas of taking the initiative.

And then Yoshino is flat out superior - range, reload, 30mm plating and hefty torpedo payload, either for 20km memes or close and personal encounters

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
2,939 posts
12,673 battles

Just had an Alaska who fired nothing  but HE at my Pyotr Bag even at 8 km.

I burned him down.

 

Even an Alaska can be played badly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,058 posts
12,082 battles
36 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

Just had an Alaska who fired nothing  but HE at my Pyotr Bag even at 8 km.

I burned him down.

 

Even an Alaska can be played badly!

I like Alaska a lot, don't get me wrong. And it is a good ship for sure. But personally I think Alaska is a bit overrated when it comes to how stronk it is.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,839 posts
11,253 battles

Honestly, I dont think you can draw a comparision between Azuma and Alaska just like this. A lot of things about them 2 have already been said but one thing Id like to add: What about the silver cruisers? Sure, you could conclude that Azuma should be buffed on levels of Alaska, but where does it leave the other Cruisers? What about Azuma vs Roon f.e.? The problems really comes from those supercruisers sitting in the cruiser class and beeing match against "real" cruisers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,780 posts
17,292 battles

Drake's technically a tier 9 super cruiser with Azuma, Alaska and Kron too.

 

Isn't Kron the best of the bunch by miles? It's literally a capital ship with 71k HP, 16" AP pen, 18.5s reload, 12km radar etc. Scary.

 

How about Drake vs Azuma for the best HE spammer? 59mm pen or 5100 alpha? Stealth vs range?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
257 posts
8,222 battles
1 hour ago, ForlornSailor said:

Honestly, I dont think you can draw a comparision between Azuma and Alaska just like this. A lot of things about them 2 have already been said but one thing Id like to add: What about the silver cruisers? Sure, you could conclude that Azuma should be buffed on levels of Alaska, but where does it leave the other Cruisers? What about Azuma vs Roon f.e.? The problems really comes from those supercruisers sitting in the cruiser class and beeing match against "real" cruisers.

I think buffing the armour a little would be enough its super super squishy. Not necessary to put radar or underwater citadel. Just take out 1 of the many weak points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,674 posts
19,811 battles
10 minutes ago, creamgravy said:

Drake's technically a tier 9 super cruiser with Azuma, Alaska and Kron too.

 

Isn't Kron the best of the bunch by miles? It's literally a capital ship with 71k HP, 16" AP pen, 18.5s reload, 12km radar etc. Scary.

 

How about Drake vs Azuma for the best HE spammer? 59mm pen or 5100 alpha? Stealth vs range?

Kronstadt suffers from BB dispersion, which is a balancing feature. Otherwise it‘s be bloody OP at TIX. 

 

I played only a few games in Drake, but it is in my opinion the better ship compared to Azuma. And I enjoyed every game in it. 

In fact, the entire line was pretty good with Albemarle being decent enough. But Drake is definitely a keeper.

 

It‘s ability to heal heavy damage, the guns and torps makes it way more versatile. 

 

Azuma ain‘t bad, it’s just limited to one play style, with the possibility to flank or play aggressive in the late game, assuming the HP pool is intact. 

 

Drake allows aggressive plays early on, if need be, and can get away with it. 

 

My my personal ranking of Super cruisers that i own- no need to put Stalingead in first place, everybody knows she’s OP, also don’t have her^^ (people may have different opinions):

 

Alaska

Puerto Rico

Yoshino

Azuma

Kronstadt 

 

TT ships that are currently available:

 

Brindisi

Drake

Donskoi

Buffalo

Neptune

St. Luis

Seattle

Ibuki

Roon

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
2 hours ago, creamgravy said:

Isn't Kron the best of the bunch by miles? It's literally a capital ship with 71k HP, 16" AP pen, 18.5s reload, 12km radar etc. Scary.

Pen's cool, but without overmatch there are some very harsh limitations on what it can do.

1 hour ago, Jethro_Grey said:

Alaska

Puerto Rico

Yoshino

Azuma

Kronstadt 

Personally, I'd rate:

Alaska

Stalingrad

Yoshino

Puerto Rico

Azuma

Kronshtadt

 

Not counting Graf Spee, because too hard to put into perspective compared with others. For its tier Graf Spee might as well be up with Yoshino and such, but well. Overall, Alaska, for its tier, imo, is hands down better than Stalingrad. Stalingrad has better ballistics and a better bow, but Alaska has the better pen angles, better concealment and underwater cit. Alaska midship deck is 38 mm which basically is same value as 50 mm for most enemies. It actually turns at a reasonable pace. Alaska for its tier is just a way more flexible and strong cruiser. Puerto Rico vs Yoshino was hard to evaluate. I put Yoshino first, mostly because it kind of is more consistent in its design. Puerto Rico is tankier, but its guns are derp, as a radar ship it's poor, against cruisers it has better AP, when it hits, HE wise is poorer, vs BBs it's got worse HE, but can slap broadsiders a bit, I guess. Puerto Rico isn't really much behind, just because while it doesn't do anything well, except frustrate people with its lack of cit, it's still able to be brutal when its guns behave.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,208 posts
11,990 battles
7 hours ago, creamgravy said:

Drake's technically a tier 9 super cruiser with Azuma, Alaska and Kron too.

 

Isn't Kron the best of the bunch by miles? It's literally a capital ship with 71k HP, 16" AP pen, 18.5s reload, 12km radar etc. Scary.

 

How about Drake vs Azuma for the best HE spammer? 59mm pen or 5100 alpha? Stealth vs range?

Kronshtadt, to my understanding, have AP penetration in line with 380mm guns, noticeably better than Alaska/Azuma (and therefore PR/Yoshino), but also have BB dispersion pattern, making application of that BB grade penetration... frustrating at times. And then you need broadside present for abuse due to no overmatch nor improved ricochet angles. 

 

59mm pen only allows you to pen 57mm deck on Izumo/Yamato class. And then Drake does have like KGV tier bad firing arcs I think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,780 posts
17,292 battles
1 hour ago, Panocek said:

Kronshtadt, to my understanding, have AP penetration in line with 380mm guns, noticeably better than Alaska/Azuma (and therefore PR/Yoshino), but also have BB dispersion pattern, making application of that BB grade penetration... frustrating at times. And then you need broadside present for abuse due to no overmatch nor improved ricochet angles. 

 

59mm pen only allows you to pen 57mm deck on Izumo/Yamato class. And then Drake does have like KGV tier bad firing arcs I think?

Ah I though AP pen was virtually the same as Amagi/NC at long range? Forgot about the dispersion pattern (Spee style or full BB, it's been so long since I've seen one) Alaska has a nice advantage then.

 

All of them seem very weak to CVs, tier 8 rockets/bombs are brutal.

 

Oh yeah Riga and Petra are the new Russian silver 'large cruisers' too. How does Azuma match up to Riga?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,208 posts
11,990 battles
36 minutes ago, creamgravy said:

Ah I though AP pen was virtually the same as Amagi/NC at long range? Forgot about the dispersion pattern (Spee style or full BB, it's been so long since I've seen one) Alaska has a nice advantage then.

 

All of them seem very weak to CVs, tier 8 rockets/bombs are brutal.

 

Oh yeah Riga and Petra are the new Russian silver 'large cruisers' too. How does Azuma match up to Riga?

If WoWsft is any correct... Its Stalingrad that have NC/Amagi penetration. Kronshtadt is in line with German 380mm, Petropavlowsk start lagging behind Ger 380mm past 10km, but not much.

 

Riga have 35mm deck and upper hull, which is conveniently enough to stop most non IFHE boosted HE besides German 1/4 CL/CA and large cruisers including Russian 220mm (37mm pen) as well ricochet all AP (except upcoming Shikishima/Yashima/510mm guns).

 

Both Riga and Azuma have tall, exposed citadel, but Riga have layered armor (140mm outer belt and 90/40mm citadel bulkhead), which may or may not prevent citadel damage against short fused AP or cause citadel overpen due to very narrow citadel in Riga. Riga also have 40mm icebreaker, which noticeably reduces chances of bow on citadel hits. Azuma have 8k more hp and 3% better torpedo belt. Riga, due to, technically, not being large cruiser doesn't have full time fire duration.

 

Riga have better concealment by 300m and can stealth radar (11.6km detection, 12km radar). Both handle like a bricks (920m turn radius, 13.9s vs 11.5s rudder shift). Azuma have 1km better gun range and much more potent HE damage/penetration. Riga AP penetration is mostly in line with Moskva, that is can score citadel hits on any cruiser at any range, only on most armored cruisers that are angled and 15km+ you might encounter shatters. HE seems lackluster though (same as Moskva, but with 15s reload)

220mm AP have lesser fuse arming threshold of 37mm compared to non Stalingrad 305/310mm guns and their 51/52mm fuse, but on perfect broadsides these shells still can overpen unarmored ship sections.

Azuma have better than average CB dispersion, Riga, like silver RU CA line have, supposedly, dispersion pattern that makes them noticeably inaccurate at longer ranges. How much truth there is to that, remains to be seen.

 

Basically, Riga is AP focused, with some team utility due to radar. Like Moskva, well positioned should be able to withstand quite the abuse, but, depending how layered armor will pan out, on broadsides she might go straight to gulag. Basically "mini" Moskva at tier 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
2,939 posts
12,673 battles
30 minutes ago, creamgravy said:

Ah I though AP pen was virtually the same as Amagi/NC at long range? Forgot about the dispersion pattern (Spee style or full BB, it's been so long since I've seen one) Alaska has a nice advantage then.

 

All of them seem very weak to CVs, tier 8 rockets/bombs are brutal.

 

Oh yeah Riga and Petra are the new Russian silver 'large cruisers' too. How does Azuma match up to Riga?

The improved pen angles probably

make the 220mm More effective than the Azuma 305mm on anything but the Smolensk and Colbert.

 

Kronstadt feels like an accurate battleship. The pen is huge but against most cruisers it will overpen the citadel and fail to overmatch the bow. It works best when enemy cruisers are angled but not yet in overmatch.

 

Alaska pen is perfect for cruisers and works well on broadsides all the way to 60 degrees!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
352 posts
11,571 battles

To an extent it is simply the way the chips have fallen in the current meta, long range, slow reloading big guns, with a low overall dps is not what works well in the current meta. With the Alaska, just having so much things up its sleeve, your running the troll armour, the cruiser killer guns, and if you build her double rudder like myself, she is a monster brawler.

 alaska.thumb.PNG.7c8e1bb1d959ed369897c7392aee6528.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
257 posts
8,222 battles

I just think that Azuma just fall too behind. And the only cruisers that are that squishy are smaller or have smoke, or turn better.  I think sometimes WG put soooo much weak points to one ship that even when u have 1 strong point, its not worth it.

U can have a good game, when they let you Fire from the flank, and anybody pays attention to you. But that's weird.  Before I suppose when was mostly inaccurate  German BB's, slow japanese and american BB shells. Was easier to dodge. Now with all the railguns(Russians), and fast reloading battleships (french) and cruisers. Thunderer, Conqueror I understand if you broadside u get punished. But at least that u get reward if u angled. With Azuma doesn't matter. SAP punish a lot, light cruisers. A buff in the armor would solve a lot of the problems, and maybe people will play it more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RO-RN]
Players
901 posts
11,985 battles

Alaska=mid-close range fighter, it tends to do well against cruiser thanks to outstanding ap penetration and great improved ricochet angles,67,5?(I believe). The citadel is sits quite low and it is invulnerable to any 38cm armed ship if angled correctly and a 36 mm deck who can not be overmatched by any AP, gets RADAR,heal and hydro or defensive AA.

Azuma=long=mid range fighter. good dispersion for such a large cruiser, good AP, great HE. Weak armor, citadel sits high above the water, reload is quite slow, 20 seconds it should be  18 or at least 19. Good speed,but quite crap rudder shift and turning circle, mediocre concealment. Azuma also is an attrition ship:the longer the match goes the more dangerous it becomes, the 40 seconds heal allows it to pick fights with some cruisers( Never attack a kitting azuma if you are a roon,donskoi,smolensk,kronshtadt, basically any cruiser that does  get crap/mediocre AP-or unreliable guns such as kronshtadt.) 

To be honest now:I have the azuma, I reached rank 1 with her, made a great fortune, but the ship need a buff, a rudder shift buff, or just lower the reload by 1 seconds and give it the same dispersion as all the others japanese cruisers, basically give it destroyer like dispersion.

I have seen some posts here about the kronshtadt: I can tell you from my experience that it is one of the worst, most unreliable ship in the game, and one if not the easiest ship to counter it this game: are you a cruiser(excluding RN light ones)? just angle against it, he will get only overpens,ricochets if he manages to hit you that is, armor? You can not say that this ship has armor when the citadel sits above the water line and gets a 30 and a 15 mm citadel deck. This ship in reality was a prototype for what the stalingrad should look like, heck they have the same guns but stalin gets 2.65 sigma, battlecruiser dispersion, more armor and even more AP penetration. The ship was worse from the get go when it had initially 1.8 sigma. 

In conclusion:None of the free xp ships(t9 at least for now) available are worth it. Musashi and Missouri are way way better than all of them combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,083 posts
9,479 battles
33 minutes ago, Animalul2012 said:

In conclusion:None of the free xp ships(t9 at least for now) available are worth it. Musashi and Missouri are way way better than all of them combined. 

 

I dont think its fair to compare ships which you cant get, to ships which you can get right now. And Alaska is definetely worth it.

Azuma and Friesland are another story tho... Even worse are the FreeXP TX ships

Share this post


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

×