sulghunter331

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5388

Community Reputation

160 Valued poster

3 Followers

About sulghunter331

Recent Profile Visitors

281 profile views
  1. This is mostly why I'd want Alaska at tier 10 as a cruiser. She would be, as carl put it, "A fox in a hen house" more so at tier 7 than in tier 10. At least at tier 10, the cruisers have a better chance than their tier 7 counter parts against the cruiser killer.
  2. Would you rather have Alaska playing around with cruisers in the tier 7 MM bracket, or the cruisers in the tier 10 bracket? Graf Spee and her ilk were called pocket battleships, yet, do we see as Graf Spee as a battleship? No, we see her as a cruiser, despite her massive guns (for a cruiser). Alaska was officially a cruiser, large or otherwise.
  3. Yeah, that's what I was wondering when I first read placing her at tier 7 rather than tier 10.
  4. Alaska is supposed to be hunting other cruisers or provide AA cover. She isn't made to combat other battleship, or to go hunting destroyers.
  5. And what is Moskva? It literally says in her description that she is a cruiser-killer.
  6. Japan actually started designing B-65 before the USN started with Alaska. Alaska was created as the USN's reaction to finding about the B-65. Scharnhorst may be terrible objectively against battleships, but in comparison with her tier's cruiser, she is still far superior in her performance against battleships, given that she has torpedoes and German armor and secondaries, along with her 11" guns. In fact, if it weren't for the secondaries and torpedoes, Scharnhorst would be nearly as bad as Graf Spee in dealing with destroyers as well. Scharnhorst is also very effective against cruisers, with her heavy main guns and her German secondaries. Alaska is going to be the least stealthy of the tier 10 cruisers, and will also handle like a drunk cow by comparison as well. Without good secondaries or torpedoes, Alaska is also going to flounder against destroyers with the 20 second reload on her main guns. If anything, Alaska would be more similar to Graf Spee than Scharnhorst in how Alaska is going to interact with her peers.
  7. The balance for Alaska should be that she is more powerful than her cruiser opponents, but she will be weaker than her battleship opponents. Her strength will be in between that of the cruisers and battleships, to reflect the fact of her being designed as a scaled-up cruiser equipped to best any cruiser level opponent she may face, including Japan's planned B-65. Alaska was literally designed to beat any cruiser that she might have come up against, in a similar vein in how Yamato was designed to beat any battleship that she might have faced. In tier 7, or in 10, we will be relying on the battleships to keep Alaska in check anyway. In summation: cruisers < Alaska < battleships. As an aside, it is worth mentioning that she had next to no underwater protection, thus, the Alaska class was especially vulnerable to torpedoes and underwater shell penetrations.
  8. So you don't want the tier 10 cruisers having to deal with her, but you're fine with letting her loose in tier 7? As a battleship, she'd be having fun with the likes of Pensacola, Myoko, York, and etc. At tier 10 as a cruiser, she'd be throwing down with Des Moines, Moskva, Henry IV, Zoa, Hindenberg, and Minotaur. Now, you may say that the battleships will serve as a way of keeping Alaska on a tight leash, to keep her from running rampant with the cruisers like some fox that managed to sneak into a chicken coup, but the tier 7 battleships would be less able to do so than the tier 10s. Also, we ought to consider her AA firepower. Now, Alaska's AA firepower is considered to be somewhere between that of a Baltimore and an Iowa. Unless you're going to nerf it as hard as they did with Cleveland, than you'd want to keep her at tier 10.
  9. Well, with that logic, then why is Graf Spee labelled as a tier 6 cruiser instead of as a tier 4 battleship? With your reasoning, due to her carrying those 11" guns, she has no right in calling herself a cruiser, her cruiser level armor be damned. At tier 6, only the Aoba has 8" guns, whilst all other cruisers at that tier have 6" guns. Graf Spee is beyond being head and shoulders above the other cruisers as far as gun caliber is concerned. Alaska was designed as a scaled-up cruiser, instead of as a scaled-down battleship. She was never intended to go toe-to-toe with other battleships. Alaska was instead designed as a counter to the super-heavy cruisers that Japan was cooking up. This was the main reason why Graf Spee was categorized as a cruiser, and the Scharnhorst as a battleship. One was designed as a cruiser, whilst the other as a battleship.
  10. At tier 7, the Scharnhorst's 11" guns a veritable pea-shooters compared to the 16" guns her competition packs. She needs to make every shot count. Although, I doubt 5" makes any difference to the cruisers and destroyers that come under her fire.
  11. With everyone saying that Alaska will be a premium tier 7 due to her guns alone, I wonder if anyone ever ponders how the Russian and French tier 10 cruisers have massive guns (for a cruiser) and yet are still cruisers? Why can't the USN have its own cruiser-killer at tier 10 (one that actually existed too, what a bonus!)? Granted, ~300mm would be pushing the boundary, but I would also like to point out that Graf Spee is in the game, a heavy cruiser with particularly large guns, but with cruiser level protection, traits shared by the Alaska.
  12. Unfortunately, ARP ships will not be forthcoming, as the Arpeggio and WG partnership had ended, thus we can't have any more events involving the ARP ships. That being said, I too would certainly enjoy another event to earn more ARP ships.
  13. I did not say that the effective tactic would be enjoyable...
  14. The battle in the air is decided solely between two players. Who ever wins that battle will grant their team a massive boon. Also, we already have MM deciding how our games go by putting us together with 11 other strangers of varying skill, so that's a moot point. When a CV is on the prowl, your main defence against him is huddling together with allied ships to pool together your AA fire power. Navies did this in history, and players do it in this game, the tactic is there, but DDs attempting lone wolf tactics will continue to face inevitable consequences of separating from the main fleet. Believe me, I'd love to be able to relegate some of the responsibilities of CVs to the other surface ships and be able to focus solely on damage and escorting my bombers, but if the power is reduced, to the point that said responsibilities are out of the CV players' hands, then wouldn't the 1 CV limit per team be no longer needed? Also, a skill mismatch is not a problem unique to CVs, but I suppose 1 CV per team simply magnifies the issue.
  15. As a way of answering both points, CV players are often the only one in the air to defend against the other CV. Should they fail, the enemy CV will have a field day on your team mates. Thus, with such responsibilities, I think it is fair that they should in turn have such powers to reflect, a reciprocal to the phrase "with great power, comes great responsibility", a high risk high reward scenario.