Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'alaska'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Contributor Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 18 results

  1. Let me preface by saying that Alaska isn't a bad ship, but also not a great ship. She follows the exact same formula of the USN Heavy Cruiser line, and that's exactly why she's disappointing. If you look at Alaska as if she's the Tier 9 Baltimore, she's the XL version, and meets the mold of what you'd expect her to be. Big, with nothing extra, except the improved shell angles to help her to stand out. The problem is, that's all she is. All of her consumables are vanilla. She still has the same problems with ranged engagements due to shell velocity, and her consumables are wound tightly in a way that presents the Captain without choice. Being forced to take DF over Hydro, and Radar over over Spotter and Fighter. Regardless of your feelings on the Spotter Aircraft, having the option to take the Fighter would at least make Hydro an option over DF. And why would a ship designed to be in mid to close range combat with other ships not have Hydro? This has always been an area where the role of the USN Heavy Cruisers have felt at odds with the role they've been placed in, and the return of CVs has boldened this problem. The Alaska is already behind the 8-ball in terms of accuracy compared to upcoming and current Cruisers of her size at Tier 9, and that is before her velocity is taken into account. And her penetration isn't the best either. She also doesn't compete with them in terms of healing when you add up potential HP. Her armor is good against Cruisers but fails to protect her from BB caliber shells, just like the rest of the USN Heavy Cruisers, leaving her far softer than first glance indicates. In the end she remains a playable ship, but not a particularly good and definitely not a memorable one. She is a bologna sandwhich from pre-packaged meat and bread from the corner store. Other ships like her have cheese, pickles, mustard, and some are even made from fresher ingredients right from the deli. It's hard to get a taste of variety and quality and want to go back. At some point, being told to "be thankful" your not starving wears thin as an excuse when you have those other options. I just look at this ship and wonder, just like the rest of the USN Heavy Cruiser line, where is the reward for the draw backs? Where is the cherry on top of all the exceedingly average vanilla? I'm don't want a ship that is so powerful it makes me feel guilty playing it. I just want a ship that is has a little bit of flare to define it's roll. If I'm going to be in danger from torpedoes for being close to other Cruisers that out duel me at range, then give me Hydro so my advantage means something, and that my good play isn't punished by a last second get out of jail free card. If I'm going to hunt DDs don't make me blindly hunt an opponent that can spot me from double his range and dump tons of torpedoes at me while kiting away. Unlike the prey he hunts, I cannot take those hits, so give me a chance to avoid them while I risk my ship to protect my fleet. You don't have to improve my guns, make me a harder target, or increase my armor or HP. Just give me something to hang my hat on instead of just another ship that just falls short of having a clear purpose.
  2. paradat

    Reviews on Alaska

    Notser review is up
  3. ^Title ^ How many of those who received 1 million free xp at CV rework launch with 0.8.0 will spend their XP 'credit' (which was compensation for odd tier cvs) on Alaska? or to put it another way, Is Alaska a way for WG to soak up the current glut of free xp which has been caused by the cv rework? Bonus question What impact will Alaska have on CV gameplay, if any? General NA forum folder in a few hours time :
  4. Capt_Scuttlebutt

    Alaska Spotted!

    I spotted the Alaska today, skippered by none other than LittleWhiteMouse. Could it be that LWM was testing the final configuration in preparation of her review of the soon to be released but ever elusive Alaska?
  5. I just spent about 30 mins trying to find the answer, and I don't see anything official. So I figured I'd just ask: So, is the Alaska coming in the 8.0 patch? Is there an official word out there that I missed? Anyone got link?
  6. The Alaska class was a simple expansion of the Baltimore class. Triple 12-inch in place of the triple 8-inch guns and a suitable increase in size. They were designed in response to reports of a new class of Japanese armored cruisers based on the Deutschland, which never materialized. This and the emergence of carriers, is the reason their construction put on the back burner, or cancelled outright. Nice handsome ships, that made very expensive high speed flattop escorts. I am sure WOWs will sell plenty. But the truth be told, the Des Moines/Salem CAs should be clearly superior.
  7. I had been saving up my free xp for the Alaska and I'm currently sitting on 1.2 million free xp but the recent announcement regarding the removal of the Musashi in patch 8.0 predicted for mid January I am wondering if I should go for that instead? I'm using my ~190,000 coal for the Salem when the new coupon drops on Christmas Eve. About me and my playstyle: 1) I'm a Co-Op/Operations main, I rarely play random or ranked unless there's some sort of campaign or mission that requires it. Remember, Co-Op battles tend to be faster and it's harder for battleships to get into flanking positions ... you generally end up having to engage from bow on. 2) With the exception of a few battles in the Izuschi (I know I spelled that wrong! ) I haven't played Japanese battleships since I grinded to the Kongo in CBT but I would like to eventually try the line hence the desire to get the Musashi. 3) I'm currently at Tier 8 for both of the US cruiser lines. 4) I generally don't play battleships but I love going bow on in my Richelieu and tanking tons of potential damage while scoring citadel hits. I am leaning towards getting the Musashi and then hopefully I could get the Alaska sometime towards the end of 2019 ... however I am concerned that WG could pull it from sale before then if it proves to be 'popular'. There's also a widespread belief that the Alaska could cost as much as 1,000,000 free xp.
  8. Hello, this is a direct request for WG staff / community managers regarding release of new T9 Premium ships and removal of existing ones. Can we get a confirmation on whether or not the USS Alaska will be release before or after the removal of Musashi / Kronstadt? If we cannot get information above, can we AT LEAST get information on how the Alaska will be sold before the removal of Musashi / Kronstadt? I currently have enough free XP /coal to get Musashi and Kronstadt. But I want to save them to get Alaska, then I like to use the other currency to get one of Musashi/ Kronstadt. I cannot buy either Musashi or Kronstadt right now because I don't know how / when Alaska will be sold. Since it is confirmed that both of old T9 premiums will be removed soon, I like the above information so I can make judgement on what ships I can purchase with the currencies I have. Please, WG, give us more information regarding the Alaska before you remove the Musashi / Kronstadt so we can actually make purchasing decisions in a timely manner. Thank you
  9. ST. Balance changes. American cruiser Alaska. According to the results of testing, the American cruiser will receive some improvements: The rudder shift time has been reduced from 13.8 to 13.1 seconds; Detection reduced from 16.2 to 15.5 km; Detection when firing from smoke is reduced from 12.78 to 12.09 km; Turret rotation speed is increased from 5 to 6 degrees per second; Firing angles increased and improved. Fire duration on Alaska, as well as on other similar ships (Stalingrad, Kronstadt), is increased from 30 to 45 seconds. So buffs and a nerf on fire time. https://www.facebook.com/wowsdevblog/?fb_dtsg_ag=AdyTXH7Ngp7M8oZspdqfCedkKKpm62urnqr-iu2pwI6jpA%3AAdw7_GRgRGxrF6A4cGjWX_aYLdJ68-yjHWMz-vWEJYo-kw
  10. Captured some shots of Alaska last night after rushing and getting killed in my DM (Thanks WG for the free-dom camo =). Battle result: 1st Cossack 2nd Alaska. How can we not when devilish Mouse was at the helm. 3rd Martel Pics are in 3440x1440.
  11. Falls_USMC

    USS Alaska is coming!

    Facebook Dev Blog post Text from post for those on mobile. ST, American cruiser Alaska, Tier IX Hit points – 60 800. Plating - 27 mm. Armor belt – 229 mm. Torpedo damage reduction – 13%. Main battery - 3x3 305 mm. Firing range – 20 km. Maximum HE shell damage – 4300. Chance to cause fire – 27%. Maximum AP shell damage - 8900. Reload time - 20 s. 180 degree turn time - 36 s. Maximum dispersion - 216 m. HE initial velocity - 762 m/s. AP initial velocity - 808 m/s. Sigma value – 2.05. The parameters of the dispersion ellipse are equal to the values of the Graf Spee cruiser (better than battleships, but worse than common cruisers). The parameters of the ricochet angles of AP shells are equal to the values of the American cruiser Des Moines. Secondaries - 6х2 127 mm, range - 5,0 km, Maximum HE Shell Damage - 1800, Reload Time - 6.0 seсonds. AA defense - 34х1 20 mm, range - 2,0 km, damage per second - 122. 14х4 40 mm, range - 3,5 km, damage per second - 223. 6х2 127 mm, range - 5.0 km, damage per second - 91. Maximum speed - 33 kt. Turning circle radius - 850 m. Rudder shift time – 13,8 s. Surface detectability – 16,2 km. Air detectability – 12,1 km. Detectability after firing main guns in smoke – 12,8 km. Available consumables: Slot 1 - Damage Control Party Slot 2 - Defensive AA Fire / Hydroacoustic Search Slot 3 - Spotting Aircraft / Catapult Fighter / Surveillance Radar Slot 4 - Repair party All stats are listed without crew and upgrade modifiers but with best available modules. The stats are subject to change during the testing. Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary. USS Alaska Wiki page This thing is going to be a monster. 305mm AP with Des Moines autobounce and penetration angles is going to be disgusting. Free XP or we riot!! I'm stoked for this ship. It doesn't have as colorful a history as some ships, given how late in the war it was commissioned, but I couldn't be more excited for it.
  12. Currently all the fun secondary-build-viable brawlers are battleships. It would be a very unique experience to have a cruiser that can be so. Alaska has 12-inch guns and numerous dual-purpose secondaries. With something like secondary range and build-in -40% dispersion buff, she could have mild anti-DD capabilities like a Baltimore, while her thin armor and agility compel players to play more tactically when considering brawling.
  13. So there was a lot of conjecture, and or wondering back in the first year of this game weather or not there was going to be a branch for Battle Cruisers. This seemed to be a tier and balance issue. It stemmed from the concept in reality that Battle Cruisers in real life could not hold their own against Battleships. This was made somewhat apparent at the Battle of Jutland during WW1. Also on Paper the Battle Cruiser may be equal to the Battleship with firepower, but a fight would only be in the advantage of the Battle Cruiser if it could land shots to the Battleship without receiving them. I was a little surprised then when they put Scharnhorst in the Battleship tree at Tier 7. It did make sense that it didn't belong in the cruiser tree and or if it would have ben put in their it should have been a T10. This would have been problematic if the other countries didn't really have anything to match it. I thought of Alaska, and B65 right off the bat though as comparable rivals. Russia and Great Briton though would have to have made up designs though if you wanted to keep the fair/game country rivalry thing going. So other than Alaska having slightly weaker armor than Scharnhorst, they are very comparable ships in firepower and set up. The Alaska had better radar, but this was due to when it was designed and built. If Alaska had been built and launched at the same time as the Scharnhorst then they would be in a sense an American Scharnhorst with the German ship only being a bit better in armor, and possibly a bit weaker in the 11.9 inch gun as compared to the American 12 inch gun. I think Alaska should be a premium T7 Battleship, and or move Sharny and Gnies to the T9 alt German Cruisers. Or maybe look at the possibility of making a Armored/Battle Cruiser tree. I mean also Graf Spee and tier 6. Come on. Thoughts Ladies and Gentlemen?
  14. MattttChris

    Alaska and Guam PLEASE

    If there ever was a post for you to see WG please see this one. Please can we have an Alaska class at T10 Please can we have an Alaska class at T9 I think having both ships and being able to use one for CB would be awesome. Also having one for free XP for everyone would be great
  15. Hanger_18

    Alaska "gimmick" idea

    Just curious as to what the rest of the community thought of this idea. How about giving Alaska the USN BB upgrades, artillery plotting room 1/2, as it's "gimmick" (removing the mods they replace is debatable). using the assumed range of 18.05km (this is the expected number based off RF height) . I would also assume a sigma of, or between 2.05 or 1.9, and a dispersion between 142M and 293M ( based off 3 mount USN battleship and cruisers) for those who don't know what they do off hand I believe this is something that a lot of people can be happy about for a few reasons. It's very flavorful, the USN named her after a territory to signify her middle ground between battleships and cruisers. This reinforces that further. Would compliment the guns well, as they only get better as range increases. This just helps the guns achieve the plunging fire they were designed for. increasing the range would play well with the armor scheme (the deck in particular). This would help differentiate it from the kronstadt. The ships are close in a lot a ways with some subtle differences. Highlighting the guns would help get away from that, especially with kronstadts poor dispersion as a contrast. It's not a very outlandish gimmick, it makes sense, it's not going to be some new wild concept. It's neither to hot or to cold. everyone likes consistent guns. offsets the awful concealment value of 16.9/13.9 giving the ship a little more breathing space. 1km of stealth fire room is really tight and uncomfortable. It allows for player choice. it opens up room for a lot more builds (especially if you dont remove the mods that that the plotting rooms replace) all of the following are mods i would expect players to use as alternatives, or in tandem with. Thoughts everyone? thanks for making it this far. Credit where its due because i stole some numbers from here-
×