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
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 36 results

  1. I am a huge fan of the super cruiser playstyle. I have been since the Admiral Graf Spee came into the game, and I have enjoyed the playstyle that the other super-cruisers have had to offer. Some, I'll admit, are harder to love than others (looking at you, Azuma), but I do like them all, none-the-less. Therefore, I have taken it upon my self to do research and see if it was possible to bring a tech tree line of super-cruisers into the game. Here, I present the USN Larger Cruisers. My next project will be the KM Panzerschiffes, which I am currently sources for. Tier VIII Heavy Cruiser Scheme 4-A “Convertible” (Alaska Preliminary Design) USS Montgomery Perhaps my favorite design in this line, the Montgomery is based off of Scheme 4 in a series of designs that lead to the creation of the Alaska-Class large cruisers. At this time, the USN is trying to decide if a 12” gun cruiser was viable or even needed. One of the ideas was to build 8” gun cruisers that could later be converted into 12” gun cruisers if/when it was needed. This is one of the designs used to investigate the feasibility of this. Turrets A, B, and Y sit on barbettes designed for twin 12” turrets, while turret X sits on a much smaller inverted conical barbette, which is common for triple 8” turrets. When installing the 12” turrets in-game, the X barbette will be deleted, allowing for the Y turret to freely rotate 360 degrees. While the Montgomery has the 12" guns, for health and fire duration it is a cruiser. Tier IX 12” Gun Cruiser Study CA2-A USS Samoa One of the CA2 series of designs that would yield the Alaska-Class. Samoa is named for one of the canceled Alaska-Class, and is an attempt to make an actual Tier 9 Alaska, instead of the Tier 9.5 that that ship currently is. Samoa has super-cruiser health and fire duration. Tier X USS Guam Instead of trying to pare down the Alaska to a Tier 9, it seemed easier to push her up to Tier 10. Increased reload, better range, better turret rotation, and increased health are some of the things that have been improved. The idea is to make a balanced tier 10 Alaska, without being too strong or too weak. Premium Tier VI-VII Heavy Cruiser Scheme 3 USS Sacramento Similar to Scheme 4, but with the 12" guns mounted, when using the super-cruiser formula, the Sacramento's health drops considerably. Because of this, I think she would make a good Tier 6 or 7, depending on balance of consumables. She'd be roughly analogous so Graf Spee in terms of both health and dpm, but with slightly larger guns. With the Mk.7 12" guns, she'd have the same AP DPM that Graf Spee, but better HE. She'd also be more accurate, but lack the torpedoes of the Spee. Since Radar is rare at Tier 7, I figured I'd force the play into a tough choice of either Radar or Repair party. As Sacramento uses the super-cruiser health formula, she also burns like one. Tier VIII “Improved Wichita” armed with 12” guns USS Madison [Picture Not Available] The “Improved Wichita” would eventually become the Baltimore-Class. There was discussion on what it would take to equip this ship with 12” guns. Mostly this entailed increasing the length by some 6 feet in order to make room for the ammunition. She should handle much like the standard Wichita, for the most part, just with bigger guns. Madison uses cruiser health and fire duration. Tier IX CA2H USS Phillipines Where the Samoa is a faster, more lightly armored Alaska, the Philippines is a slower, more heavily armored one. CA2-H featured deep torpedo defenses, fashioned in the same style as USN Battleships, as well as thick armor. While I do not have deck plans of her, I believe she would look similar to the other CA2 designs, and a cross-section can be seen above. Possible Tier VI or VII Premium In 1929, when the details of the Deutschland-Class became available, there was a proposal to rearm USN CA with twin 10”/50 in place of their triple 8”/55 turrets. To reflect this in game, a Northampton, Portland, or (more probably) New Orleans could get a turret swap. The new turret should fit on the old barbettes, meaning little new modeling would need to be done. The biggest mystery at the moment, and the reason I haven’t drawn up stats for such a ship yet is that I cannot find any additional information about these guns. While they were not made, there was preliminary design work that was done, as these theoretical guns were used as stand-ins for the Deutschland’s guns while preparing the CA2’s Immunity Zone calculations. I have tried approximating these guns by up-scaling 8” ammo (Mark 8 and Mark 9) and down-scaling 12” ammo (Mark 12 and Mark 13). All designations are made up by me, as I have just about zero information on this weapon. 254”/50 Mark 4 Ammo: 254mm HC Mk.9 Max Damage: 3,050 Fire Chance: 16% Shell Pen: 42mm Muzzle Velocity: 808m/s 254mm HC Mk.13 Max Damage: 4,250 Fire Chance: 24% Shell Pen: 42mm Muzzle Velocity: 808m/s 254mm AP Mk.8 Max Damage: 5,500 Muzzle Velocity: 762m/s 254mm AP Mk.12 Max Damage: 8,150 Muzzle Velocity: 762m/s There is also mention of a study for a 15,000t cruiser with either six 11”/50 or 12”/50 guns, though I have not been able to find any more information on these, and I down even less work was done on the 11” guns than on the 10”. Thank you taking the time to read this and feel free to ask question or critique my choices. I enjoy the discussion about as much as doing the research for these ships (which I do, or else I wouldn't do it).
  2. olá a Todos! gostaria de opiniões sobre o Alaska,cruzador americano de tier IX. minha opinião pessoal é que o mesmo sofreu mudanças horríveis durante as últimas atualizações do Game, entretanto as mudanças não trouxeram equilíbrio, ao invés disso trouxe um nerf gigante sobre esse cruzador, que eu amava aliás, agora nem faço questão de usa-lo e gostaria de vende-lo, porém não há essa possibilidade pois quando tentei fazer isso a opção não estava disponível. As seguintes características citadas abaixo constavam no site do jogo: No papel, muitos aspectos do Alasca se assemelharão aos de seus homólogos, Kronshtadt e Azuma. No jogo, no entanto, os capitães descobrirão que o Alasca tem um estilo de jogo mais semelhante ao dos cruzadores pesados alemães (como Roon). Armada com nove pistolas de 305mm, ela não tem a capacidade de ir "apenas AP" em batalha; algo que seu homólogo russo pode fazer facilmente. Os capitães são altamente encorajados a investir na habilidade expert loader, a fim de aproveitar ao máximo sua bateria principal. A este respeito, o Alasca é bastante semelhante aos cruzadores normais, na sua formação regular de conchas, dependendo do alvo escolhido. No que diz respeito à sua armadura, ela mantém a tendência de cruzadores americanos de alto nível com revestimento de 27 mm em suas extremidades, além de possuir um deck médio à prova de incompatibilidade. Apesar de ter 10.000 pontos a menos que Kronshtadt, o Alasca tem uma sobrevivência semelhante - se não superior - devido ao seu layout de armadura e melhor furtividade. O Alasca também tem uma cidadela abaixo da linha d'água, permitindo que ela frequentemente evite batidas de cidadela à queima-roupa. Ainda assim, sua armadura é bastante fraca, e ao tomar fogo de encouraçado ao alcance, sua cidadela permanece muito vulnerável. Os capitães devem ficar de olho nas posições do navio de guerra inimigo, e ou ângulo ou fazer uso de ocultação em conformidade. Enfim, isso hoje não é a Realidade! Contra cruzadores leves o Alaska não leva mais vantagem, Danos por Spam HE são altos como em navios Alemães e japoneses, Precisão de acertos caiu muito, a curta distância não do mais dano, o que é horrível pois antes a mano a mano com muitos navios eu tinha muita vantagem devido a velocidade e manobrabilidade mesmo levando dano pesado e sempre vencia o adversário. Rentabilidade agora e tão igual a um navio de linha comum com camuflagem premium que chega se ridículo. Tenho comandante com 21 pontos de habilidades no Alaska e isso não faz diferença, tanto e que fiz os builds possíveis e gastei créditos atoa nos equipamentos e não ficou como era antes. Enfim, estou decepcionado por terem acabado com esse cruzador. Postarei prints e até mesmo replays se possível mais adiante caso houver comentários que possam esclarecer minha opinião e quem sabe chegar a um consenso geral. Atenciosamente, PS: gostaria que visitassem o link abaixo e conferir sobre as características do navio até a pouco tempo para ter mais informações e poder dialogar de acordo com elas. Premium Ship Review #120: Plus Sized Baltimore - General Game Discussion - Fórum oficial do World of Warships
  3. The latest season of clan battles reminded of me the total lack of premium T9 non-super cruiser options. I mostly played in USS Alaska, which is not as good as it once was due to the loss of fire prevention. I find it curious that WG has not released any premium non-super cruisers at this tier. I consider T9 tech tree cruisers to be weak for their tier when compared to their T10 successors (e.g. USS Buffalo vs USS Des Moines), unlike several T9 tech tree DDs and even some BBs. In addition, many have some glaring vulnerability (e.g. HMS Drake's rear turret firing angles). Instead of a steady stream of more premium cruisers at T8, or more premium T9 CBs, why not cash in on the considerable pent up demand for balanced premium T9 CAs or CLs? Here are a few ideas based on ships that actually were built: USS Rochester - This ship belonged to the successor to the Baltimore class heavy cruiser, the Oregon City class. It was in service from 1946 to 1961. Here is how to bring the ship to the game: Start with a fully upgraded Baltimore Add a few thousand hit points Add a repair party and upgrade slot 6 (like all T9 cruisers get) Adjust the radar consumable to last 35 s (consistent with other T9 US cruisers) Increase turret rotation speed by 1 degree per second Decrease rudder shift by 0.5 - 1.0 s Slightly improve AA continuous damage to reflect historical AA battery and the better firing angles offered by the smaller super structure of this class Everything else stays virtually identical to the USS Baltimore The cool thing about Rochester is we know WG can balance what would essentially be a T9 Baltimore since that is where the ship was slated prior to the US cruiser CA/CL split. USS Fargo - This ship belonged to the successor to the Cleveland class light cruiser, and was the lead ship of the Fargo class. It was in service from 1945 to 1950. Here is how to bring the ship to the game: Start with a fully upgraded Cleveland Add a few thousand hit points Add a repair party and upgrade slot 6 (like all T9 cruisers get) Adjust the radar consumable to last 35 s (consistent with other T9 US cruisers) Decrease rudder shift by around 0.5 s Improve her concealment by -200 to -300 m Slightly improve AA continuous damage to reflect historical AA battery and the better firing angles offered by the smaller super structure of this class. Her AA should not be quite as strong as USS Seattle's because she did not have a dual purpose main battery. Everything else stays virtually identical to the USS Cleveland I'll do some further research on other historical T9 premium non-super cruisers that could be added to the game. One that comes to mind is the already in development: HMS Tiger. Maybe add HE shells, or a short range hydro and some more hit-points and up-tier her to T9? If anyone has any other cruisers that could fit in this category, historical or not, please share below. Thanks!
  4. Most of you have already seen the video on a Dutch ship pretty much demolishing an Alaska through the use of airstrikes. I've been told that just raging over it doesn't help so might as well offer something constructive .Here's the clip in question for comparison. What do we learn from this however, and how did we arrive in that result? Luckily there are some stats can help explain. All of it is pulled from https://www.wows-gamer-blog.com/2021/04/hnlms-gouden-leeuw-researchable-dutch_23.html so obviously the usual disclaimers on third party sites and their info applies. The airstrike stats: Will now go through some of the important (in my opinion figures) "HE bomb airstrikes: 3". This section implies that the airstrikes store "charges", in that case called flights. You can seemingly expend all of them in one go, which is what we saw here. It's not a bug with cooldown as some assumed, it's what WG decided to give to this ammo. From what I know this is the maximum amount of flights you can "store", some Dutch ships have 2, some 1. Number of aircraft in attacking flight: 12. Pretty simply stuff here, each flight is comprised of 12 planes. That means when the attack on Alaska happened, with 3 flights, 36 planes attacked. Aircraft HP: 2200 . This number would have some value if the planes would appear a bit earlier. From what I saw they appear close to 5km, meaning the amount of time they spend until the are safe from flak on their attack run is very low Number of bombs in payload: 4. Again simple stuff, each plane carries 4 bombs (250kg) . Which ironicaly is historically accurate with the plane WG picked (Fokker T.V was capable of carrying 2200 lbs of bombs, 1000kg). What it practically means is that in the clip shown it was 12x3x4= 144 bombs in a single attack. Maximum HE bomb damage: 8500. An 8500 max HE damage means theoretically in a single attack of three flights you can deal 1.224.000 damage. Of course this is impossible for two reasons. First of all, the bomb patterns look pretty inaccurate. Secondly, the max HE damage figure only applies on citadels, so in truth it's 33% for a penetration and 10% if damage saturated. Let's assume full penetrations in that case, 8500x 0.33= 2805 damage. This is confirmed by the figures as the strike happens on Alaska, with 5610 damage being dealt. Let's assume you attack an unsaturated target, your practical maximum alpha could be 403.920 (without taking into account saturation that occurs as the strike progresses). Again though, considering the area covered by the airstrike is very large, even that number is impossible to achieve Alpha Piercing HE: 46.3 mm. Oof. From what I'm aware this is pretty much an autopen for most cruisers. From the tech tree Tier Xs, only Petropavlovsk, the posterboy of balans can shatter these bombs on the deck. Still, the bombs cover a large area and there are many weaker areas like extremities and superstructure. For tier X BBs, things are a tiny bit better for some, absolutely crap for others. Yamato, Kurfurst, Kremlin, Vermont, C. Colombo can shatter the bombs in the mid deck. However again these ships are large, with long extremity sections and huge superstructures. Ships like Montana, Conqueror, Republique are just meat with their 32 or 38mm decks. Chance of causing fire: 48.0%: Yeah, I mean that's the cherry on top pretty much and CV enthusiasts feel free to correct me, but no CV has that base fire chance in any of its planes. Amendment: Apparently Midway and FDR (and Saipan but who sees a Saipan anymore amirite?) Dive Bombers have a higher base firechance (thanks @sapient007 for the heads up!) Conclusion: Loads of stuff needs to change if these things will be even remotely fair. Considering they are classed as ammunition, stuff like Adrenaline Rush apply to them as well, and personally I hope that's the only thing that affects the cooldown. The penetration needs to be looked at, as also the distance on which the planes magically appear. An indicator that a strike will happen in your area should be definitely added, and the matter of storing flights and expending them all at once in my books should be removed entirely. To me however, as I know others as well, one thing absolutely drives me crazy. The fact that we have to assume someone did internal testing, saw these stats and potential, and greenlit the ships with that mechanic to be added as is. First of all, you can do this stealthed up. To expand on this, you can do this stealthed up, set up multiple fires, wait on cooldown of damage control, then do it again for permafires. By the time the fires are out, you already get a new flight to repeat it. At that point you don't even need to fire your guns. If it took me 10 minutes to figure out how broken this is, then it should have been immediately obvious to someone getting paid for this. Unless of course WG isn't interested in shipping out a somewhat balanced product even early on, but just wants to create a buzz on the new upcoming flavour of powercreep. Thanks for taking the time to read, hope some discussion comes out of this. Forgot to add! If anyone finds a mistake, please let me know so I can correct.
  5. Since it's recently been a topic of discussion, these are the restrictions for the Clan season. https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/128 Not a CB player, though afaik the bans/limits make sense. Mogador packs were reported to be pretty common, Musashi without CVs and overmatch capability was in a strong spot, Georgia with the quick heals, 30mm overmatch capability and nigh DD speed. Wondering what CB players have to comment on these changes.
  6. barbaroja_Ar

    Update 0.10.1 date?

    Hi all When is Update 0.10.1 due? February? 9.11 is in PTS, so it should be December I assume 0.10 will be January @Hapa_Fodderis there official release dates? TIA
  7. 6fingeredman

    Alaska and Smaland

    Two questions. What date should we roughly expect to lose Alaska and Smaland as fxp ships? Which one would people recommend? Going to be pushing hard to rack up as much fxp before they leave so I can at least get one. Edit: I enjoy all ship classes so I don't really have any preference when it comes to CA vs DD for clarification
  8. The following are a series of quick reviews of the Black Friday ships. Access to all eight of these ships was provided to me by Wargaming at no cost to myself. To the best of my knowledge, the statistics discussed here are accurate as of patch 0.9.10. Please be aware that their performance may change in the future. Happy Holidays! I am not going to be negative snark-monster this year. Okay, that's a lie. My first draft of this was chock-full of grumpy holiday resentment. But I vented. I got it all out of my system. I deleted said draft and now I'm feeling all better. I'm able to genuinely enjoy the season again, mostly thanks to being able to play super-auntie. Heck, I'm even finding myself excited for some of the upcoming releases Wargaming has announced for this holiday season.. Even with the inevitable accelerated release schedule that comes this time of year, I feel ready. 2020 has been one Hell of a ride for the game, even if you ignore the pandemic. There has been so much content, so many releases and so many events, it's been genuinely hard for me to keep track. As of Black Friday this year, there are now forty-three (43!) premium and reward ships that have been released and we know of at least two others due out before the end of the year. That's nine more ships than the previous front-runner of thirty-six releases, way back in 2016. As has been custom for Wargaming since 2018, Black Friday sees the release of four new clone ships with sexy black and chrome camouflage schemes. While I would love to use their releases as an excuse to update some of my older reviews, it's just not realistic. Still, I thought I could throw something together that's fun while also speaking to the current performance of said ships. To that end, I present to you, the Twelve [edited] of Christmas. On the first day of Christmas, Sub_Octavian sent to me... ♪ A Ship That's Retiring Shortly! ♫ Massachusetts Black Massachusetts is arguably one of the best premiums that Wargaming has ever made. She's not only fun and powerful, her gimmicks went on to inspire hope of seeing an entire tech tree line based on her performance. It's a shame that she's being retired with patch 0.10.1. I resent "fear of missing out" as a sales tactic and I'm not advocating that you panic buy this ship if she does not interest you, but if she was on your list of ships to get, now's the time. On the second day of Christmas, Sub_Octavian sent to me... ♪ Two Turtlebacks ♫ Tirpitz Black When she was released back in September of 2015, Tirpitz was a monster. It was inconceivable that a battleship could be (mostly) immune to citadel hits. On the third day of Christmas, Sub_Octavian sent to me... ♪ Three Not-Bensons ♫ Sims Black This isn't an easy ship to recommend precisely because there are better ships out there. For the longest time, she was compared negatively to other American destroyers owing to her smaller gun battery and lacklustre fish. On the fourth day of Christmas, Sub_Octavian sent to me... ♪ Four Deep Water Fish ♫ Asashio Black Behold, the ship that single handed made battleships unplayable. Oh wait, that didn't happen. Asashio's torpedoes are stupid. They have a 20km range, almost zero detection and hit like trucks. Oh, but they can only hit battleships and aircraft carriers. She's so single-minded in her purpose its hilarious. On the fifth day of Christmas, Sub_Octavian sent to me... ♪ Five American Piercing Shells! ♫ Alaska Black Like Massachusetts, Alaska is set to be pulled with patch 0.10.1. It's a shame, she's a very nice ship with great artillery. Her AP shells have improved auto-ricochet mechanics and solid penetration, allowing her to flex between ammunition types no matter what target presents themselves from moment to moment. Combine that with good durability and Surveillance Radar and perhaps you can see why she's being retired. On the sixth day of Christmas, Sub_Octavian sent to me... ♪ Six Tribals skulking ♫ Cossack Black Tribal-class destroyers are excellent destroyer-hunters and cap-contesters. This is a high-risk, high-reward style of play that's not for everyone. On the seventh day of Christmas, Sub_Octavian sent to me... ♪ Seven reloads boosting ♫ Jean Bart Black Seeing this ship here is a surprise. Jean Bart was retired last year due to her popularity. This is largely owing to her Main Battery Reload Booster for her guns which allows her to punish exposed enemies like few ships can. On the eighth day of Christmas, Sub_Octavian sent to me... ♪ Eight turrets spamming ♫ Atlanta Black I will always have a soft spot for Atlanta, ever since I watched PhlyDaily and BaronVonGames spamming her rapid-fire 127mm/38s at everything that moved in Closed Beta. On the ninth day of Christmas, Sub_Octavian sent to me... ♪ Nein second bomb drop ♫ Graf Zeppelin Black Graf Zeppelin had a ... well, let's just say "storied" development history, including (but not limited to) bombs that required you to lead a target by nine whole seconds. No, I'm not kidding. That's gone now, thankfully. On the tenth day of Christmas, Sub_Octavian sent to me... ♪ Ten different skins ♫ Atago Black Okay, I'm exaggerating a little. Between Atago, Atago B and her Arpeggio of Blue Steel clones she has nine permanent camouflage options -- ten if you include her default, no-camo skin. On the eleventh day of Christmas, Sub_Octavian sent to me... ♪ Eleven inch shells bouncing ♫ Scharnhorst Black Scharnhorst's 283mm AP shells are notorious for having very limited overmatch potential. With the increase in cruiser armour with the HE and IFHE rework earlier this year, her shells ricochet more often than they ever have previously. On the twelfth day of Christmas, Sub_Octavian sent to me... ♪ Twelve torpedo planes ♫ Kaga Black Kaga is best known for her enormous (if squishy) squadrons. Her dive bombers and torpedo bombers come in squadrons of twelve, her rocket planes in squadrons of eight. Thoughts & Feels There are some good ships here. Wargaming has generally picked winners which makes most of them a pretty safe purchase. Atago, Atlanta and Massachusetts would be my top picks for someone who doesn't already have said ships. These are all strong vessels that have aged reasonably well, but most importantly they're all fun to play. I'm glad they've made the older ships available for direct purchase through the Armory for doubloons rather than forcing you to roll the dice or pay cash. If you want the new four ships, you're going to have to either pony up for a massive bundle, buy them directly through the online store or gamble through loot boxes. I am not a fan of loot boxes at all -- it's safe to say that I abhor them almost to Jim Sterling levels of ire (thank god for him). One thing to be super-aware of with these Black ships is that though they may be clones of their parent vessels, they DO NOT COUNT as said parent vessels for the purposes of missions. So, for example, say the Strasbourg event coming up at the end of the year has a mission which you can short cut using Jean Bart. Jean Bart Black would not work for said mission unless specifically listed. This also means that any follow up camouflages or whatever that gets released for the parent ship will not be available on the Black version. So think twice about spending money on these if that's one of the reasons you wanted them. Thank you all for reading. I hope you stay safe over this holiday season. If you have any questions about the performance of any of these ships, this is the place to ask. I'm happy to wax poetic about my favourites and the rest of the community is sure to chime in too. ♥
  9. I noticed for the first time in the Captain's Logbook that rare ships are not listed among the ship collection unless you own one. For example, I have the HMS Vampire in my port, and it is listed separately from the rest of my collection and from the commonwealth ships. In the screen clip below I've filtered out only the UK and Commonwealth ships from my port to illustrate how a rare ship appears separately. I went looking thru some of the other nation's fleets and the HMS Belfast is also missing (though not the Belfast '43 as you can see above), as is the USS Arkansas, USS Benham, USS Missouri, the IJN's Musashi, the Kutuzov, and the G. Cesare. I'm sure there are other ships that have been removed from being acquirable thru normal means that I don't remember which are also missing from the Logbook. More interesting are the ship's I was expected to be missing and are still present: I was pleasantly surprised to see the USS Enterprise is still listed. I was not as pleased to see the Smolensk. The Jean Bart is also listed (and she is coming back for Black Friday). This leads me to believe we now have two categories of currently non-acquirable ships: those who are so powerful they make the game unbalanced in some way, and those WG has removed to create artificial scarcity for a time (e.g. Jean Bart, the USS Black, the USS Flint being recent examples) but which will come back for special events or limited time awards, etc and maybe even eventually to the Armory/Premium Shop. The former fall into the "Rare" category in the Logbook, the latter do not. I suspect the Thunderer, Massachusetts, Georgia, and Alaska to fall into this latter category when they are removed early next year since they have all been part of the game for some time and, while popular, they haven't broken anything. I'm not as sure about the Smaland, however. She may become a "Rare" ship. I base this only on the fact that she has not been out very long and is not very common, yet she is getting pulled.
  10. Good day Captains! So I love camo's in World of Warships. I love the tactics of ranked play, playing the torp game, burning people down in HE ships, and dropping citadels like the rest of them. But one thing I enjoy, but don't see any YouTube video's on a consistent basis are premium camo's. What I do see are a lot of unedited replays and some folks with terrible mic audio and I promise you will not find that on my channel. I'm a full on nerd and have a pretty decent little studio setup so I decided to take on the challenge myself. I have started a new YouTube channel to publish a couple genre's of World of Warships videos but my main focus and my favorite to make so far are these Showcase videos to show off some of the beautiful camouflages that are available in the game or no longer available even. If you like camo's and care to help out a budding little YouTuber I would be extremely grateful for your click on the below video. If you think it's crapthen tell me about! If you think it's worth a comment/like/share/subscribe then maybe show me some love! O7
  11. Friday bundle (source: Asia)
  12. Grand_Admiral_Murrel

    Super-heavy cruisers

    Hey shipmates! Just looking for opinions on the following topics: should super-heavy cruisers (such as Alaska, Agir, etc.) have shorter fire duration? And would giving tier 10s (and 9s?) 30 mm plating on the bow and stern be too powerful? Just thinking, Graf Spee is unique in that it has 45s burn time when on fire. Agir, for example, burns for 60s, and yet doesn't have a battleship's HP to weather the storm in (let's face it) a world where HE spam is the norm. It basically forces any serious players to take a survivability build if they want to try and make the most of their ship, which doesn't seem fair. Players shouldn't have to worry about such things. Look at the recent IFHE rework: they changed HE penetration and armour thresholds across the board to make taking the IFHE skill a choice rather than a necessity. On the note of armour, I find ships like Siegfried and Agir are extremely vulnerable to overmatch by basically all new battleships that have been introduced (Georgia, Ohio, Yashima, etc.), and since these ships are supposed to be more tanky than your average heavy cruiser, I feel like 30 mm bow and stern plating would be a plausible change. 30 mm is still able to be overmatched by large-calibre battleship guns, but it would increase survivability slightly. As I said earlier, these ships don't have the HP to brawl, so any slight increase would help. Let me know what you guys think in the comments below! Thanks! Grand_Admiral_Murrel
  13. anonym_bleJN7gXeLqd

    Love the Alaska....despise the Puerto Rico

    It is very unfortunate that the USS Puerto Rico is nigh impossible for me to acquire. I was much looking forward to getting the "Rich Port" in my own WoWS port, and sailing her to glory.....but the recent New Years' Directives being outrageously too difficult to complete within the 32 days it will last (my winter break does not even last that long), and with the desire for me to spend some quality time with my own family over the holidays...….I will have to pass over the Puerto Rico. But......why bother with the Puerto Rico in the first place when I have the USS Alaska? I am proud of my Alaska. She is a great Tier IX ship. Alaska actually built by the United States navy (unlike the Puerto Rico, who Wargaming based off of one of the submitted proposal designs to built the battlecruiser design that was to be the Alaskas). She has very good bulk, can tank a decent amount of damage to her citadel, and has powerful guns that make other cruisers subconsciously aware of their vulnerable citadels...... …….this is why I love the Alaska. She cost only 1 million Free XP and 1 single credit to get, and that is a hell of a lot better than the nightmarish grind that is the Dockyard to get Puerto Rico. So I am sticking firmly with my Alaska. If I really need to play a Tier X American cruiser, I will just rely on my good ol' USS Des Moines. And that's that.
  14. Good day dear sirs. Rigth now I got almos 180k worth in carbon and 1 million in free XP I was considering waiting and save such resources for the Siegfried- Ägir. But recently, as you already now, WG is removig some ships form the armory, and i got a breif glimpse that perhaps, Gerogia-Alaska would be removed for simliar reasons. ¿Should I grab Georgia-Alaska and get later Siegfried- Ägir ? Tnx for your attention
  15. So i was scrolling through the WOWs wiki, when I noticed that a new ship had been added to the American line. Its possibly a test ship, but it looks nothing like the other tier 10 USN cruisers. Hard to tell, but the closest ship it looks to is an Alaska, but it looks like it has a better AA sweep then the Alaska. Has anyone heard of Wargames testing for a tier 10 big gun cruiser?
  16. After getting Alaska (thanks again for the skill suggestions) & Halsey ... I decided to reopen the USN BB line ... languishing at the New Mexico for the past year. I bought Colorado, assigned Halsey, and put him on Alaska for retraining ... planning out an end state "combo" skill build, I didn't have enough points ... who does? I started with: PT, EL ... EM, AR ... SI, BoS ... CE, FP ..... but that's 20 points ... so I checked out Little White Mouse's review for Alaska ... LWM listed: PT, PM ... EM, AR ... BoS, SI ... FP, CE ... notice a pattern? and also 20 points I kept messing around with a lot of combinations which included JoaT, HA, PM, etc ... and finally came up with PT, EL, PM ... EM ... Bos, SI ... FP, CE ... 19 points ... picks up PM and removes AR ... and even more "tankiness" I wondered, is AR that critical for a BB with 30 sec reload and Alaska with 17.6? I do love it (on faster firing guns) ... but that pesky point thing. Right before your HP goes to zero, reload is only 20% less ... e.g. 24.1 and 14.1 for Montana & Alaska respectively. Any thoughts? TIA
  17. I can only imagine the in-game chat was like for the red team. He didn't do anything all game but creep from hidey hole to hidey hole (finished last on the xp table) and he almost got away with it, if it wasn't for those darn kids in their DDs
  18. Avenge_December_7

    Alaska Tactics?

    I've recently managed to scrounge up enough free xp to get Alaska, and took her out for a few battles in co-op (since my computer cannot handle randoms at the moment) Granted, in co-op I take a far more aggressive approach than in randoms (usually just rushing straight in instead of stand-off distance), but I have not found much success using Kronshtadt's tactics—for some reason, Alaska seems a tad more fragile (or it could just be me stupidly sailing straight into an AI crossfire + bad luck with being targeted). How does one sail Alaska properly?
  19. 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.
  20. paradat

    Reviews on Alaska

    Notser review is up
  21. ^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 :
  22. 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?
  23. 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?
×