Alaska/Guam as T10 cruiser.

[Minibjorn]

Greetings captains.

 

I come here today to make a suggestion/argument for the Alaska/Guam "super cruiser" as a nice fit for a T10 slot when the US cruiser lines split. Of course I have a personal stake in this, as it's a ship I like and would like to see in the game, more over it would be a unique ship to have in the cruiser line, but it has more in common with a cruiser than it does a battleship. Also, I would hate too see it as a premium ship.

*VC381 made a very good observation, that sqeezing in late war ship in the low/mid tiers, along with the pre/early war ships, is making the Cleveland mistake all over again, and the only way to make them fit those tiers is to strip them down or they become quite too good.

 

 

Why I think it would work as a T10 cruiser.

If it was put in on the BB(battleship) line it would have to be a low tier ship, say T3 - T5, because of its armour and guns mainly, but the AA layout would never work as a low tier BB(see why later on).

But as a T10 cruiser its guns and armour would fit nicely and its other features would also slot in well. The Alaska & Guam were completed late in the war, 1944, and as such were build with all the lessons from the start and because the war ended never saw any substantial refits, more reason why a T10 would suit it better, no need for hull upgrades.

 

Guns & Armament

The ship's main armament was 9x 12"(305mm) guns mounted in triple turrets(3x3). Now while 12" guns might, to some, seem big for a cruiser I don't belive that it would negate it's place as a cruiser. Currently the other 12" guns we have ingame are on the low T3 & 4 BBs(Battleships) and they have a RoF(Rate of Fire) or RpM(Rounds per Minute) of ~2.0(30sec reload), now this would not work for a cruiser but at T10 a RoF of ~3.5(17-18sec reload) to ~4.0(15sec reload) would allow it to compete without making it too good compared to its peers. As far as damage goes I'm thinking in the area of ~3500HE & ~6500AP.

Possible stats for the guns.

• RoF ~3.5 - 4.0 (18 - 15sec reload)
• 180° turn 45 - 40sec (4 to 4.5 degree per second, expert marksman adds 0.7)
• Max HE dmg. ~3500 with ~20% Fire chance.
• Max AP dmg. ~6500 (33% hit 2145 // 10% hit 650)

I can already now see people questioning if 12"(305mm) guns can work for a cruiser, even a T10, and of course there are concerns as we have not yet seen larger than 8.66"(220mm). But I fully believe than they can work, if balanced right, I set them as a RoF of 3.5 - 4.0, now... low tier BB versions of these guns have ~4100 HE and ~8100 AP, now these numbers would not work for a cruiser, this is also for a RoF of 2.0 on a BB. Some people have said that they are not like the guns on the low tier BBs, this I'm well aware of... I was simply using the only other 12"(305mm) guns we currently have ingame as a stepping stone to work out how the  12"(305mm) guns on the Alaska could be balanced to function in a T10 cruiser role.

 

Its secondary armament at this point is the standard US cruiser layout 12x 5"(127mm) guns in dual turrent(6x2), the same layout as the Cleveland/Baltimore/Des Moines. These guns also had dual purpose(DP) function, meaning they fired as both other ships and aircrafts.

These Guns, artillery mode, would be like other ones ingame, RoF 10, max'1800 HE damage, 5% fire chance, 5.0km base range.

The AA armament, as I said earlier, would never really allow this ship to fit into a low tier BB slot, unless nerfed a lot, the AA layout consisted of: 56x 40mm in quad mounts(14x4) and 34x 20mm in single mounts(34x1), combined with the 5"(127mm) DP guns. All these guns are already in the game, and using those the ship would have a total AA damage of ~435 when planes were ~2km away. [See B hull Baltimore ingame for a close reference]. Now what an AA score this high means for the ship is that, unless reduced a lot, it would never work as a lower tier BB or a lower tier cruiser.

 

Armour and Protection

I'm not going to go over every area of armour on the ship, it would take ages, and I'm sure WG has access to better documents regarding this than I do... but I will lay out some of the main ones. The main armour belt covering the machinery and magasine areas, what we ingame call "citadel", was ~229mm thick. and the armoured decks had a combined thickness of ~127mm. While this is quite a bit more armour than the cruiser currently ingame have, I don't think it would make the ship not work as a cruiser, seen in combination with how it's otherwise put together.

 

Mobility & Concealment

The Alaska/Guam could do 33kts(knots), a speed that would also allow it to fit nicely as a T10 cruiser.

Possible mobility stats.

• 33kts top speed
• ca. 800m turning circle
• ca. 14sec rudder response time (Module can reduce this by 20%)

The mobility as well as its concealment would of course have to fit the ship's balance, but I would see it being in the area of 16km/10km(Surface/Air) as far as detection ranges go. And something along the lines of a 800m turning circle with a ~14sec rudder response time. With these numbers, and allowing for their modifiation with upgrades and commander perks, I think the ship could compete at T10 without feeling out of place.

 

I will add some links a little later on and edit the post as we go, or if there are errors/typos.

But for now please give feedback, tell me & WG why you agree or disagree with this, I posted this here to get feedback and to see how other people feel about it. Please keep it civil though.

 

NB.

Remember that everything said here is just ideas, nothing is fixed values or set in stone... things can change several times based on feedback and new info.

EDIT : After talking to people, and reading, I will concede that the Alaska/Guam would also fit very well as a reward ship for a comprehensive mission or ranked season, maybe as much as in the tech tree.

 

Best regards and good hunting.

[ColonelPete]

You can be sure it will be in game someday, probably as premium.

[BlueMoon51]

My understanding is that at some point it will be added to a 2nd US cruiser line(but that was an answer during early beta)

[Reyte]

Greetings captains.

 

I come here today to make a suggestion/argument for the Alaska/Guam "super cruiser" as a nice fit for a T10 slot when the US cruiser lines split. Of course I have a personal stake in this, as it's a ship I like and would like to see in the game, more over it would be a unique ship to have in the cruiser line, but it has more in common with a cruiser than it does a battleship. Also, I would hate too see it as a premium ship.

 

 

Why I think it would work as a T10 cruiser.

If it was put in on the BB(battleship) line it would have to be a low tier ship, say T3 - T5, because of its armour and guns mainly, but the AA layout would never work as a low tier BB(see why later on).

But as a T10 cruiser its guns and armour would fit nicely and its other features would also slot in well. The Alaska & Guam were completed late in the war, 1944, and as such were build with all the lessons from the start and because the war ended never saw any substantial refits, more reason why a T10 would suit it better, no need for hull upgrades.

 

 

• The ship's main armament was 9x 12"(305mm) guns mounted in triple turrets(3x3). Now while 12" guns might, to some, seem big for a cruiser I don't belive that it would negate it's place as a cruiser. Currently the other 12" guns we have ingame are on the low T3 & 4 BBs(Battleships) and they have a RoF(Rate of Fire) or RpM(Rounds per Minute) of ~2.0(30sec reload), now this would not work for a cruiser but at T10 a RoF of ~3.5(17-18sec reload) to ~4.0(15sec reload) would allow it to compete without making it too good compared to its peers.
• Its secondary armament at this point is the standard US cruiser layout 12x 5"(127mm) guns in dual turrent(6x2), the same layout as the Cleveland/Baltimore/Des Moines. These guns also had dual purpose(DP) function, meaning they fired as both other ships and aircrafts.
• The AA armament, as I said earlier, would never really allow this ship to fit into a low tier BB slot, the AA layout consisted of: 56x 40mm in quad mounts(14x4) and 34x 20mm in single mounts(34x1), combined with the 5"(127mm) DP guns. All these guns are already in the game, and using those the ship would have a total AA damage of ~435 when planes were ~2km away. [See B hull Baltimore ingame for a close reference]. Now what an AA score this high means for the ships is that, unless reduced a lot, it would never work as a lower tier BB or a lower tier cruiser.
• I'm not going to go over every area of armour on the ship, it would take ages, and I'm sure WG has access to better documents regarding this than I do... but I will lay out some of the main ones. The main armour belt covering the machinery and magasine areas, what we ingame call "citadel", was ~229mm thick. and the armoured decks had a combined thickness of ~127mm. While this is quite a bit more armour than the cruiser currently ingame have, I don't think it would make the ship not work as a cruiser, seen in combination with how it's otherwise put together.
• The Alaska/Guam could do 33kts(knots), a speed that would also allow it to fit nicely as a T10 cruiser.

 

 

I will add some links a little later on and edit the post as we go, or if there are errors/typos.

But for now please give feedback, tell me & WG why you agree or disagree with this, I posted this here to get feedback and to see how other people feel about it. Please keep it civil though.

 

Best regards and good hunting.

 

the armanment is way to big to fit as standart cruiser.... Gameplaywise it would be more of a bb....

 

I dont think this ships fits in any way into the current game.....

 

 

[von_chom]

we will be wiser after few months with Moskvas

no point to speculate on that level, since the answer is behind the door

[mtm78]

I agree I want it, I am not sure about the feasibility.

 

a> 305mm >>>>> 220mm on Moskva. 

b> Alaska would be visible from ranges BB's are visible.

c> Alaska's armor is only able to withstand 203mm cruiser fire.

d> Giving it to high rpm would make it insanely OP against other cruisers.

e> But enemy cruisers can always dictate engagements due to concealment.

f> Alaska can't control engagements with enemy BB's ( to the same extent as enemy cruisers can with itself ) and is too big a target to dodge battleships. 

g> Alaska would therefore be to situational, would only work on large maps with sufficient tactical information to engage cruisers but stay clear of battleships.

 

[BadGene616]

I agree I want it, I am not sure about the feasibility.

 

a> 305mm >>>>> 220mm on Moskva. 

b> Alaska would be visible from ranges BB's are visible.

c> Alaska's armor is only able to withstand 203mm cruiser fire.

d> Giving it to high rpm would make it insanely OP against other cruisers.

e> But enemy cruisers can always dictate engagements due to concealment.

f> Alaska can't control engagements with enemy BB's ( to the same extent as enemy cruisers can with itself ) and is too big a target to dodge battleships. 

g> Alaska would therefore be to situational, would only work on large maps with sufficient tactical information to engage cruisers but stay clear of battleships.

 

Not sure about b.

If I recall correctly spotting mechanics for BB have the ship always detected on firing unless the ship is out of render range of the nearest enemy or unless there is a physical obstruction on the map.

 

A CA or in this case CB with larger calibre guns might follow the "regular" spotting mechanic rules where increase is a product of calibre. 

 

Might be interesting. 

The question is, could you create a line of ships for any navy of CB? Or has the compromise already happened in say the ijn tree with CB counted as BB? Otherwise, it would be an interesting novelty.

[mtm78]

Not sure about b.

If I recall correctly spotting mechanics for BB have the ship always detected on firing unless the ship is out of render range of the nearest enemy or unless there is a physical obstruction on the map.

 

A CA or in this case CB with larger calibre guns might follow the "regular" spotting mechanic rules where increase is a product of calibre. 

 

Might be interesting. 

The question is, could you create a line of ships for any navy of CB? Or has the compromise already happened in say the ijn tree with CB counted as BB? Otherwise, it would be an interesting novelty.

 

I was thinking about concealment before firing, 

 

What do you mean with CB? Alaska is a CC ( cruiser capital ) according to USN register, other countries would classify it as BC ( battle cruiser ).

 

I am hoping we will get BC lines for most nations separate from BB line's, would allow more variety in gameplay ( but would also strain MM because making balanced teams without knowing if players are actually capable of non mirrored engagements is very hard ).

[Minibjorn]

 

I was thinking about concealment before firing, 

 

What do you mean with CB? Alaska is a CC ( cruiser capital ) according to USN register, other countries would classify it as BC ( battle cruiser ).

 

I am hoping we will get BC lines for most nations separate from BB line's, would allow more variety in gameplay ( but would also strain MM because making balanced teams without knowing if players are actually capable of non mirrored engagements is very hard ).

 

CB(Cruiser Big).

And no, the USN saw them as super sized cruisers (super cruisers), not BCs(Battlecruisers), and the USN did have the catagorised as CBs.

WG has already said that there almost certainly will not be a battlecruiser tree... they will be slotted into the normal BB tech trees.

[Aotearas]

Considering what high tier meta needs is cruisers with low detectability and fast firing, fast turning guns to actually hunt DDs rather than cruisers with even slower firing, slower turning guns and BB detectability, I'd say no.

 

Then add the obvious balancing issues with this proposal into the mix and the answer is definately no.

[Trainspite]

Alaska is more of a tier 7 or 8 battlecruiser to me, most likely premium, as Lexington designs fill up my projected USN BC line. Alaska is quite comparable to Scharnhorst, and has better armour than quite a few battlecruisers...

[SergeantSchultz]

they could work and bring a new element to game play. the guam/alaska were meant to be super cruisers kind of like the Atlanta was meant to be a DD task force leader IE out gun smaller ships but not fight larger ships.

the would bring a kind of status quo to CL/CA game play at the T10 as a hunter killer vs CL/CA 

[Minibjorn]

Alaska is more of a tier 7 or 8 battlecruiser to me, most likely premium, as Lexington designs fill up my projected USN BC line. Alaska is quite comparable to Scharnhorst, and has better armour than quite a few battlecruisers...

 

First of, it's almost certain that we won't see a stand alone battlecruiser line.... which is the right way to go. And it would not fit as a T8 in a 2nd BB line either... the South Dakota fits that slot perfectly, as it's close be being a North Carolina clone. at T7 the Tennessee or Pennsylvania fits much better, Nevada would be a great T6/T7 candicate in the 40s refit.

 

And the AA would have to be reduced a lot to fit in a T7/T8 slot.

[RamirezKurita]

 

I was thinking about concealment before firing, 

 

What do you mean with CB? Alaska is a CC ( cruiser capital ) according to USN register, other countries would classify it as BC ( battle cruiser ).

 

I am hoping we will get BC lines for most nations separate from BB line's, would allow more variety in gameplay ( but would also strain MM because making balanced teams without knowing if players are actually capable of non mirrored engagements is very hard ).

 

The Alaskas have always been CBs, never CC. They were never referred to as battlecruisers / capital cruisers, but always large cruisers. The only CCs the USN ever ordered were the Lexingtons. Similarly, they weren't treated as capital ships in terms of design and doctrine, being treated as oversized Baltimores rather than actual capital ships like the Iowas.

 

The size difference between the Alaskas and the Moskvas also isn't that great, only 5000 tons displacement difference at full load which isn't that significant considering their sizes (30,000 tons for the Moskva and 35,000 tons for the Alaska) as well as the Moskva's design being newer by a more than a decade which makes up for that size difference due to the advancements in technology.

[mtm78]

 

The Alaskas have always been CBs, never CC. They were never referred to as battlecruisers / capital cruisers, but always large cruisers. The only CCs the USN ever ordered were the Lexingtons. Similarly, they weren't treated as capital ships in terms of design and doctrine, being treated as oversized Baltimores rather than actual capital ships like the Iowas.

 

The size difference between the Alaskas and the Moskvas also isn't that great, only 5000 tons displacement difference at full load which isn't that significant considering their sizes (30,000 tons for the Moskva and 35,000 tons for the Alaska) as well as the Moskva's design being newer by a more than a decade which makes up for that size difference due to the advancements in technology.

 

Other nations classified them as BC, even in USN they have been referred to as such: 

 

Despite these cruiser-like characteristics, and the U.S. Navy's insistence on their status as cruisers, the Alaska class has been frequently described as battlecruisers.^[37] The official navy magazine All Hands said "The Guam and her sister ship Alaska are the first American battle cruisers ever to be completed as such."^[40] Some modern historians take the view that this is a more accurate designation because they believe that the ships were "in all senses of the word, battlecruisers", with all the vulnerabilities of the type.^[9][39] The traditional Anglo-American battlecruiser concept had always sacrificed protection for the sake of speed and armament—they were not intended to stand up against the guns they themselves carried.^[41] The Alaska's percentage of armor tonnage, 28.4%, was slightly less than that of fast battleships; the British King George V-class, the American Iowa class, and the battlecruiser/fast battleship HMS Hood all had armor percentages between 32 and 33%, whereas the Lexington-class battlecruiser design had a nearly identical armor percentage of 28.5%. In fact, older battlecruisers, such as the Invincible (19.9%), had a significantly lower percentage.^[42] Armament-wise, they had much larger guns than contemporary heavy cruisers; while the Baltimore class only carried nine 8"/55 caliber Marks 12 and 15 guns,^[43]the Alaska class carried nine 12"/50 caliber guns that were as good as, if not superior to, the old 14"/50 caliber gun used on the U.S. Navy's pre-treaty battleships.^[44]

 

Age of design btw is totally irrelevant in this discussion. What is relevant is the armament. Displacement, well I might be wrong about their expected concealment ratio but then again..

 

 

 

[VC381]

Yes. They are beautiful ships, I want one and would sail it no matter where it ended up, although I prefer the idea of it being a top tier cruiser. I say that because they are late war ships and squeezing them in as lower tier BBs would be making the Cleveland mistake all over again. It would break what little historical immersion there is, they would eat every cruiser alive and have crazy OP AA for their tier.

 

And you can argue all day about what different people call them but the official USN pennant numbers were CB-1, CB-2 etc. CC was only ever used for the Lexington class.

[triumphgt6]

If you make that a cruiser, what would you do with the Schanhorst? It is a battlecruiser designed to deal with ships like the Graf Spee. 12" guns means she has a battleships armament. Really, the top gun size for a cruiser should be 8" - I do realise that the Alaska was essentially a heavy cruiser with battleship guns, but I cannot see it in a cruiser line up. Clearly one for the oddities like the Graf Spee. Maybe another line?

[RamirezKurita]

 

Other nations classified them as BC, even in USN they have been referred to as such: 

 

 

Age of design btw is totally irrelevant in this discussion. What is relevant is the armament. Displacement, well I might be wrong about their expected concealment ratio but then again..

 

The only time they were ever referred to as battlecruisers by the USN was very early in development, but even then most of the early design drawings that I have seen for them label them as CBs, so it must have been some really early designs that still held the CC designation.

 

The age of design is important because it represents the level of technology in the ship, obviously newer ships will have more advanced designs. This is shown in the differences between the current crop of T7 and T8 cruisers, they are all 10,000 ton treaty cruisers but the T7s were the from the 20s while the T8s were from the 30s with all the advancements that entails.

 

Battlecruisers typically had similar displacements and armaments to battleships of their time; the Alaska's had armaments that were basically several generations of behind the modern battleships while they were also only 2/3rds the size of equal generation battleships. Rather than being a ship with the size and firepower of a battleship but sacrificing amour for speed, the Alaskas were just pygmy Iowas.

[mtm78]

 

The only time they were ever referred to as battlecruisers by the USN was very early in development, but even then most of the early design drawings that I have seen for them label them as CBs, so it must have been some really early designs that still held the CC designation.

 

The age of design is important because it represents the level of technology in the ship, obviously newer ships will have more advanced designs. This is shown in the differences between the current crop of T7 and T8 cruisers, they are all 10,000 ton treaty cruisers but the T7s were the from the 20s while the T8s were from the 30s with all the advancements that entails.

 

Battlecruisers typically had similar displacements and armaments to battleships of their time; the Alaska's had armaments that were basically several generations of behind the modern battleships while they were also only 2/3rds the size of equal generation battleships. Rather than being a ship with the size and firepower of a battleship but sacrificing amour for speed, the Alaskas were just pygmy Iowas.

 

True, design wise they were not BC's. 

[VC381]

If you make that a cruiser, what would you do with the Schanhorst? It is a battlecruiser designed to deal with ships like the Graf Spee. 12" guns means she has a battleships armament. Really, the top gun size for a cruiser should be 8" - I do realise that the Alaska was essentially a heavy cruiser with battleship guns, but I cannot see it in a cruiser line up. Clearly one for the oddities like the Graf Spee. Maybe another line?

 

Scharnhorst has armor to rival Bismarck, Alaska does not. Also Scharn has the option for the uncompleted upgrade to 6x 38cm guns. Not a fair comparison despite superficial similarities.

 

Also the Alaska was more an excercise in how big can you make a cruiser before it's too expensive to be worth it. It was actually a complete waste IRL since it never did anything a Baltimore couldn't have done on a fraction of the size/cost.

[Trainspite]

 

First of, it's almost certain that we won't see a stand alone battlecruiser line.... which is the right way to go. And it would not fit as a T8 in a 2nd BB line either... the South Dakota fits that slot perfectly, as it's close be being a North Carolina clone. at T7 the Tennessee or Pennsylvania fits much better, Nevada would be a great T6/T7 candicate in the 40s refit.

 

And the AA would have to be reduced a lot to fit in a T7/T8 slot.

 

It is most definitely possible to build a USN BC line. You just have to look for the designs. I'm only unsure about a tier 10, but otherwise you can have a full USN BC line with a premium tier 7 Alaska as well. 

 

Alaska has no place in the second US BB line, so I don't know why you would suggest that. Since Lexington takes the tier 7 for a BC line, and a 12 gun Lexington takes the tier 8 spot, Alaska gets the premium treatment.

 

Alaska is not a battleship, but it is definitely not a cruiser by in game terms. Only by USN Classification is it a cruiser. It has all the other traits of a battlecruiser, or an evolution of one. 

 

If you want a cruiser with large guns, then try the German Panzerschiffes. For which it is also possible to construct a tech tree branch with.

 

 

[RamirezKurita]

 

Scharnhorst has armor to rival Bismarck, Alaska does not. Also Scharn has the option for the uncompleted upgrade to 6x 38cm guns. Not a fair comparison despite superficial similarities.

 

Also the Alaska was more an excercise in how big can you make a cruiser before it's too expensive to be worth it. It was actually a complete waste IRL since it never did anything a Baltimore couldn't have done on a fraction of the size/cost.

 

Don't forget that the Scharnhorsts also were made in an era when the standard battleship size was 35,000 tons due to treaty limits rather than 45,000 tons on the escalated treaty limits. Being 15% smaller than a normal battleship means the Sharnhorsts can pass as a small capital ship while the Alaskas' 33% smaller size than the battleships is far more prominent.

[EsaTuunanen]

low tier BB versions of these guns have ~4100 HE and ~8100 AP, now these numbers would not work for a cruiser, this is also for a RoF of 2.0 on a BB. So this is for sure something I will look at and add later.

Those weren't some old BB guns.

Along with heavier AP developed for them armor penetration basically matched old 14" guns like those of New Mexico.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.htm

 

Though emphasis seems to have been in penetration with smaller bursting charge than in old 12"  AP shells. (while HE had more explosive than older 12" HEs)

Not that those matter much in game when smallest bursting charge IJN HEs have been given highest in game damage.

[Minibjorn]

 

1* It is most definitely possible to build a USN BC line. You just have to look for the designs. I'm only unsure about a tier 10, but otherwise you can have a full USN BC line with a premium tier 7 Alaska as well. 

 

2* Alaska has no place in the second US BB line, so I don't know why you would suggest that. Since Lexington takes the tier 7 for a BC line, and a 12 gun Lexington takes the tier 8 spot, Alaska gets the premium treatment.

 

3* Alaska is not a battleship, but it is definitely not a cruiser by in game terms. Only by USN Classification is it a cruiser. It has all the other traits of a battlecruiser, or an evolution of one. 

 

If you want a cruiser with large guns, then try the German Panzerschiffes. For which it is also possible to construct a tech tree branch with.

 

 

1* I never said that you could not make a BC line, I said that it's almost certain that we won't see one... WG has said in a few Q/A that they don't want to make a pure BC line.

2* I didn't suggest it in the 2nd BB line, please stop saying I did something I didn't, I only ever suggested it as a T10 cruiser... I put the BB option in the vote, as the option should be there for the people who think that... and I know some do, because I have seen it suggested before.

3* I think it's a good fit for a cruiser, a T10 for sure... but a cruiser non the less.

 

 

Those weren't some old BB guns.

Along with heavier AP developed for them armor penetration basically matched old 14" guns like those of New Mexico.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_12-50_mk8.htm

 

Though emphasis seems to have been in penetration with smaller bursting charge than in old 12"  AP shells. (while HE had more explosive than older 12" HEs)

Not that those matter much in game when smallest bursting charge IJN HEs have been given highest in game damage.

I know they were not, but they are the only other 12" guns we have in game, so I used those as a stepping point for setting damage, as it's almost certain some people will use those as a comparison when I talk about a ship with 12" guns.

I'm well aware that the 12" guns used on the Alaska/Guam were new designs... that's also why I have not yet put in any stats for turret rotation and such, just RoF and Damage... and the damage is not a set value, it's a suggestion where I think the ship should be in terms of performance in order to be balanced for T10.

Hence the 3500 max HE damage and 6500 max AP damage, if you look at the current T9/10 cruisers ingame and compare, I think those numbers could work.

[triumphgt6]

Very unusual ship - therefore if it appears, should be Premium. As to which line, probably BB - would be like a BB Atlanta!