Jump to content


Premium Ship Review: Alabama

Now with 40% less Rick Astley Alabama Premium Ship Review

  • Please log in to reply
277 replies to this topic

KnightFandragon #221 Posted 14 March 2017 - 05:17 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,403
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postparadat, on 13 March 2017 - 06:18 PM, said:

Good or bad after the crap storm we had to get this ship I feel obligated to buy her.

 

I honestly had hoped that after all the crapstorm about the Iowa, Monty and NC citadels that WG would go ahead and NOT [edited]up the Alabama in the same manner. 

LittleWhiteMouse #222 Posted 15 March 2017 - 12:38 PM

    Captain

  • WoWS Community Contributors
  • Members
    Beta Testers

  • 5,552
  • Member since:
    01-04-2013

NoZoupforYou narrates through a replay by Lert and I.  It highlights the power of her guns combined with the fragility of her citadel.

 


Q♥  Most Recent Review:  Duca D'Aosta 0.6.3.1
  


Battleship_Kentucky #223 Posted 15 March 2017 - 09:16 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 861
  • Member since:
    05-25-2015

View PostRivertheRoyal, on 13 March 2017 - 04:57 AM, said:

You know, I don't get it. I really don't. Why is this citadel such a big deal for so many people? It's not like we didn't see this coming, and it's not like we were promised a German battleship masquerading as an American one. And it's not like having a high citadel immediately means you're getting blown out of the water as soon as the match starts.

As has been pointed out, you can easily work around the citadel. Hell, anyone who's sailed the Iowa, Missouri or Montana should know exactly how to do it too. In fact, Alabama has the agility that those ships do not, making her more capable of dealing with the high-citadel then they ever were.

As has been pointed out, she's par for the course as far as high tier USN battleships are concerned. Except, she also has the maneuverability of a standard. Which is amazing, to be honest.

As has been pointed out, the Alabama isn't going to be idiot-proof. She's a ship for a more experienced player to enjoy.

 

If you don't like the sound of all this, there's a simple solution. If you don't think you can work around the 'citadel of doom!', then don't buy the bloody ship! It's as simple as that.

 

Nobody said you have to like the Alabama, you know. Nor that she shouldn't have any flaws.      

 

I dont think the cit makes her a bad ship, I think it means shes a HARD boat to play. I mean, I love playing the Krispy Kreme, and shes got a MASSIVE cit. I think people really need to stop complaining and simply learn the ships quirks. ^^' 

"9 barrels of 16 inch ear splitting, earth shattering divine retribution!"


Jonesyrules15 #224 Posted 16 March 2017 - 12:49 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 109
  • Member since:
    12-30-2015

I will buy it.  So good job WG


 

I don't buy the argument that it would be OP with a waterline cit similar to the NC.  The NC still gets punished pretty good showing a broadside.  Not as bad as an Iowa but it isn't pretty if you turn and get caught.


 

More BBs please (RN, FRENCH, ITALIAN)


Raptor_alcor #225 Posted 16 March 2017 - 01:48 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,580
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012

View PostExcield, on 11 March 2017 - 07:19 PM, said:

I'm torn about this ship. I really wanted it, but the opinions of it's citadel really turn me off. The prospect of getting devastated striked by a Yamato shooting through my bow to land all AP shells at my citadel.... *shudders*

 

Of course, besides the Yamato, pretty much any higher tier BB will see an Alabama as nothing but a free DMG pinata. Might as well be a large, super clumsy cruiser with big guns in their eyes.

 

Dammit WG. What the frig where those ST's doing?? I'm sure there was more than a bunch voices their opinions against such a large citadel on a BB at high tiers... On their defense, I can only hope that it was WG who ignored them.

 

You do know that fear you have mentioned in your first sentence is completely possible with the iowa/missouri and montana yeah? Also in what world is there ever a dev that listens to complaints from testers and impliments EVERYTHING, especially when that alteration would turn the ship from strong to blatent P2W level OP. 

The happy blue fox. 


Randy_Rohrer #226 Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:30 AM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 1
  • Member since:
    07-22-2015

View PostHazeGrayUnderway, on 12 March 2017 - 02:33 AM, said:

 

South Dakota was never in any danger of sinking from their gunfire even with the electrical failure.

 

To add, the Kirishima dented a barbette...whatever...The Washington TCB'd and the So Dak would have done the same w/o the electrical failure. I think it's laughable that players of this game equate the game ships with the actual ships (if they were built). This isn't to minimize the absolute skill of the IJN at night without radar. 

 



ANDROMADA #227 Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:30 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 51
  • Member since:
    12-17-2012
WG have lowered Alabummer's citadel. Just to let you know LWM.

Phoenix_jz #228 Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:35 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,928
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View PostRandy_Rohrer, on 20 March 2017 - 11:30 PM, said:

 

To add, the Kirishima dented a barbette...whatever...The Washington TCB'd and the So Dak would have done the same w/o the electrical failure. I think it's laughable that players of this game equate the game ships with the actual ships (if they were built). This isn't to minimize the absolute skill of the IJN at night without radar. 

 

 

And if the Kirishima had managed to put shots (AP shots) into South Dakota's belt, we'd be looking at a much different story of that night...


 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


crzyhawk #229 Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:48 AM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,181
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015
No we wouldnt.  Kirishima was not going to sink the SoDak with gunfire.  Period.

Edited by crzyhawk, 23 March 2017 - 01:49 AM.


Phoenix_jz #230 Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:59 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,928
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View Postcrzyhawk, on 22 March 2017 - 08:48 PM, said:

No we wouldnt.  Kirishima was not going to sink the SoDak with gunfire.  Period.

 

Sink? I never said that. I'm just saying, had Kirishima actually been able to hit South Dakota in the belt with an AP shell, it would've likely penetrated, and caused a lot of damage. 

 

Kirishima no matter what was never going to have enough time to sink South Dakota. Washington sees to that, as her ripping Kirishima to pieces that night is actually what saved South Dakota from taking bigger hits. Aside from the Barbette hit, the only 14" hits SouDak took were HE and the AA shells.


 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


MizzouRT #231 Posted 23 March 2017 - 07:25 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 15
  • Member since:
    08-21-2015

I always enjoy LWM's reviews.  However, I agree with Flamu on the AL with the high citadel, it just makes this ship a mess.  NC with perm camo is far superior and no reason to buy AL unless you are a collector.  It would be the worst T8 BB in the game.

 

Is AL with a lowered citadel OP?  I don't think so.  It will still suffer big AP pens if you show flank and waterline shots will still cit you.  The US BBs have been underpowered and all the stats show that.  Why should the AL be clearly worse than Amagi, BIz and Tirp?  Glad to see they are now testing AL with a lowered citadel.  If WG really wants less passive / spawn camping / bow on reversing BBs then AL needs a lowered citadel, even if other nerfs are required for play balance purposes.  But perhaps they should start by nerfing the German BBs if play balance is the overriding concern.


Edited by MizzouRT, 23 March 2017 - 07:26 AM.


SgtSullyC3 #232 Posted 23 March 2017 - 04:43 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 617
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016

Concealment Expert for the AA build and Manual Fire Control for AA Armament for the Concealment build aren't bad choices either.

 

I, uh, think that's backwards. Great review. I know this is a bit early, but are you going to cover the changes made to her armor layouts in 0.6.2.2? I don't think she will be OP with the lowered citadel. Slightly stronger than No Cal (although I will be keeping mine as well), but not OP. I'm very much looking forward to the removal of the T9-10 USN BB high citadels. I cringed today in my Iowa when the enemy Iowa got stuck on an island broadside on to me at 7km (don't ask me why he was showing broadside). 4 out of 6 shells were citadels for almost 50K damage in a single salvo. The poor Iowa was left with 1,324hp and no engine broadside on to a wall of torpedoes laid by a Benson.


Edited by SgtSullyC3, 23 March 2017 - 04:48 PM.

T1-3: Orlan, Smith, Derski, G-101, Katori, St. Louis, Friant, South Carolina

T4-6: Izyaslav, Clemson, Danae, Yūbari, Kaiser, Minekaze, Furutaka, Königsberg, Omaha, Kongo, Duca D'Aosta, Cleveland, Ryujo

T7-9: Sims, Mahan, Atlanta, Ranger, Saipan, New Orleans, North Carolina, Alabama, Lexington, Iowa

 

GoalsIJN: Shiratsuyu, Shokaku - USN: Benson, Baltimore, Missouri, Essex - KMS: Gneisenau - HMS: Fiji - VMF: Gnevny - MN: La Galissonnière


CybrSlydr #233 Posted 23 March 2017 - 04:54 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,060
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View PostSgtSullyC3, on 23 March 2017 - 11:43 AM, said:

Concealment Expert for the AA build and Manual Fire Control for AA Armament for the Concealment build aren't bad choices either.

 

I, uh, think that's backwards. Great review. I know this is a bit early, but are you going to cover the changes made to her armor layouts in 0.6.2.2? I don't think she will be OP with the lowered citadel. Slightly stronger than No Cal (although I will be keeping mine as well), but not OP. I'm very much looking forward to the removal of the T9-10 USN BB high citadels. I cringed today in my Iowa when the enemy Iowa got stuck on an island broadside on to me at 7km (don't ask me why he was showing broadside). 4 out of 6 shells were citadels for almost 50K damage in a single salvo. The poor Iowa was left with 1,324hp and no engine broadside on to a wall of torpedoes laid by a Benson.

 

Well, let's be honest - at 7km, I would expect to do that kind of damage to an Iowa.

CybrSlydr:  The poster you love to hate so you feel better about yourself.

 

World of Warships:  Video Game version of "Who's Line?..." where the rules are made up and the history doesn't matter.

 


SgtSullyC3 #234 Posted 23 March 2017 - 05:04 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 617
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016

View PostCybrSlydr, on 23 March 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

 

Well, let's be honest - at 7km, I would expect to do that kind of damage to an Iowa.
True lol. Just wish they would at least buff the USN fast BB deck armor. Is it really necessary for NCs, Iowas, Montanas to melt like ice cream cones in the summer whenever a HE spamming cruiser looks at you? NC/Alabama isn't so bad, they have the maneuverability to get out of the situation quickly. But big, clunky Iowas and Montanas can't turn without getting deleted (even with the lower citadel, the massive turn circle will give enemies plenty of time), so whenever a Kutuzov or Zao pops out of nowhere, your only option is to stop and reverse. Slowly. Your only hope for survival in that situation is to kill them, and if they are paying attention they can dodge the big, floaty USN para-shells easily.

Edited by SgtSullyC3, 23 March 2017 - 05:08 PM.

T1-3: Orlan, Smith, Derski, G-101, Katori, St. Louis, Friant, South Carolina

T4-6: Izyaslav, Clemson, Danae, Yūbari, Kaiser, Minekaze, Furutaka, Königsberg, Omaha, Kongo, Duca D'Aosta, Cleveland, Ryujo

T7-9: Sims, Mahan, Atlanta, Ranger, Saipan, New Orleans, North Carolina, Alabama, Lexington, Iowa

 

GoalsIJN: Shiratsuyu, Shokaku - USN: Benson, Baltimore, Missouri, Essex - KMS: Gneisenau - HMS: Fiji - VMF: Gnevny - MN: La Galissonnière


BossmanSlim #235 Posted 23 March 2017 - 05:05 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,223
  • Member since:
    03-27-2015

"wont pay crapanymore to wg.lot of orange is bad for business.stop giving win to the one you favor.potato need win to.otherwise no more potato in game" - fellow forum poster


SgtSullyC3 #236 Posted 23 March 2017 - 05:10 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 617
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016
Boss man, who posted your signature and where can I find it? :P

T1-3: Orlan, Smith, Derski, G-101, Katori, St. Louis, Friant, South Carolina

T4-6: Izyaslav, Clemson, Danae, Yūbari, Kaiser, Minekaze, Furutaka, Königsberg, Omaha, Kongo, Duca D'Aosta, Cleveland, Ryujo

T7-9: Sims, Mahan, Atlanta, Ranger, Saipan, New Orleans, North Carolina, Alabama, Lexington, Iowa

 

GoalsIJN: Shiratsuyu, Shokaku - USN: Benson, Baltimore, Missouri, Essex - KMS: Gneisenau - HMS: Fiji - VMF: Gnevny - MN: La Galissonnière


AquaSquirrel #237 Posted 23 March 2017 - 05:14 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 753
  • Member since:
    10-18-2015
I jut saw Chase's video. The decision has me a little annoyed and worried for the future of premiums. 
Formerly OliverPerry 

SgtSullyC3 #238 Posted 23 March 2017 - 05:35 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 617
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016

I think it's just more drama. Like seriously. The Alabama is still not gonna be OP. Just a little better than NC. And not so much that it outclasses NC either. Alabama has better torpedo protection - Only applies if you eat torpedoes broadside. And if you're eating broadside torps in enough quantities to make torpedo protection necessary with a battleship, you're doing something wrong. It's not much better than NC. Detection is a tad higher. Sigma is a tad lower. Armor is almost the same. Maneuverability is a bit better. It's still gonna eat citadels when showing broadside. And this isn't the first premium that is slightly better than it's TT counterpart - Missouri has radar instead of plane, slightly better armor, worse rudder shift compared to C hull Iowa. OK. Indianapolis is slightly better than Pensacola. Konig Albert is MUCH better than Nassau. Need I go on? Yes? OK. Scharnhorst trades 2kts and 4 inches in gun size from Gneisenau for more guns and better turret traverse/reload. Tirpitz trades some secondaries for torpedoes compared to Bismarck. Alabama trades some accuracy and concealment for torpedo protection and turning circle. What is the big deal? It's not like it's a freakin' Nikolai or Gremmy. It's main gimmick over NC is only useful when you screw up. Prems gonna be OP insta-win compared to TT counterpart? Nuts to that.


T1-3: Orlan, Smith, Derski, G-101, Katori, St. Louis, Friant, South Carolina

T4-6: Izyaslav, Clemson, Danae, Yūbari, Kaiser, Minekaze, Furutaka, Königsberg, Omaha, Kongo, Duca D'Aosta, Cleveland, Ryujo

T7-9: Sims, Mahan, Atlanta, Ranger, Saipan, New Orleans, North Carolina, Alabama, Lexington, Iowa

 

GoalsIJN: Shiratsuyu, Shokaku - USN: Benson, Baltimore, Missouri, Essex - KMS: Gneisenau - HMS: Fiji - VMF: Gnevny - MN: La Galissonnière


CybrSlydr #239 Posted 23 March 2017 - 06:02 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,060
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

The only thing I would say to iChase is that the Alabama is really the first ship which has come out as premium that has had as many errors as it did.  When the Tirpitz came out, it was correctly modeled.  When the Indianapolis came out, it was designed properly, etc.  

 

And by designed properly, there were no glaring discrepancies between the way they were actually built versus the way they were modeled in-game as we saw with the South Dakota.

 

 


CybrSlydr:  The poster you love to hate so you feel better about yourself.

 

World of Warships:  Video Game version of "Who's Line?..." where the rules are made up and the history doesn't matter.

 


KaptainKaybe #240 Posted 23 March 2017 - 06:26 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,530
  • Member since:
    08-14-2012

Alabama is fine as she is now. Her agility, turret traverse, and torpedo belt are balanced out by her slightly worse dispersion, lower HP, slightly worse mid range AA, and worse concealment. With her waterline citadel now, she'll play a bit like a jack of all trades master of none brawler/mid range hybrid. Not as good as Bismarck or Tirpitz in a brawl, not as good as North Carolina in the mid range, but more adaptable than both as situation calls for. She is not OP, or at least not OP compared the existing tier 8 premiums which are all very competitive. Now, she'll be a more comfortable boat to play for average players rather than a boat that only appeals to unicums with tons of experience with map awareness.

 

I do foresee her being stronger than North Carolina in stats now, mind you, but that's less due to the boat's strengths and more due to the fact that said *premium* boat will be sailing with 19 point Montana captains. And I still expect Bismarck and Amagi to do better as both of those ships are disgustingly powerful.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users