Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
FierceNemesis

U.S.S. Alaska

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

6
[BALOR]
Members
31 posts
5,365 battles

Since the U.S. is represented by all it's cruisers so far why aren't you adding the last one - the Alaska. It is called a "large heavy cruiser" but in fact it is a Battle-cruiser that falls under the heading made famous by ships like the Hood. This ship needs to be added to the American ships available for game play.  The German's have Sharnhorst, the Japanese have the Maya class so why not the Alaska.

Thank you for your time.

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,569
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
9,486 posts
15,773 battles

Because no one knows where to put the damn thing; half the players want it as a tier 7 BB, the other half as a tier 10 cruiser. It's a stone cold bee-atch to balance, has an ROF that's just plain scary, Yubari levels of accuracy with radar driven 12 inch guns, and cruiser armor.

The very best thing WoW could / should do is to initiate a pure Battlecruiser line, complete with Saratoga/Lexington as originally planned (or perhaps use 2 different paper designs for 2 tiers), and go from there. Unfortunately, the USN built damn few ships as Battlecruisers, and it would be a very thin, and mostly paper, line. And even with other nations having more BC designs, I don't know of any which could fill out a full line with ships that were actually built.

Which is why Kongo is a BB, Scharnhorst is a BB, etc.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,477
[SALVO]
Members
18,945 posts
19,191 battles
1 hour ago, Umikami said:

Because no one knows where to put the damn thing; half the players want it as a tier 7 BB, the other half as a tier 10 cruiser. It's a stone cold bee-atch to balance, has an ROF that's just plain scary, Yubari levels of accuracy with radar driven 12 inch guns, and cruiser armor.

The very best thing WoW could / should do is to initiate a pure Battlecruiser line, complete with Saratoga/Lexington as originally planned (or perhaps use 2 different paper designs for 2 tiers), and go from there. Unfortunately, the USN built damn few ships as Battlecruisers, and it would be a very thin, and mostly paper, line. And even with other nations having more BC designs, I don't know of any which could fill out a full line with ships that were actually built.

Which is why Kongo is a BB, Scharnhorst is a BB, etc.

The USN built exactly ZERO ships as  battlecruisers.

Furthermore, remember that the 'battlecruiser' is a WW1 era concept that stopped being relevant with the technological improvements that came during the 1920's in boiler/engine technology that allowed battleships to attain battlecruiser levels of speed while using the same percentage of their overall tonnage on propulsion as before.  During the WW1 era, true battlecruisers were of basically the same tonnage as battleships, but exchanged tonnage in armor for tonnage for propulsion.  (The RN were more extreme in this exchange than the Germans, which resulted in German BC's being very rugged ships, while RN BC's were less so.)

Thus, there really aren't any true (new) battlecruisers after around the mid 1920's.  And pretty much no one built any after Jutland.  The RN cancelled all of the Admiralty class BC's except the Hood.  The USN started work on the Lexington class battlecruisers, while the Japanese started work on the Amagi class battlecruisers.  But both classes were cancelled due to the Washington Naval Treaty.

Calling the Alaska class "battlecruisers" is a very questionable thing because they simply do not fit the mold of a proper WW1 era battlecruiser.  The Alaskas were not battleships that reduced armor for more engines.  They were greatly upscaled Baltimore class cruisers.

 

Regarding WoWS, I don't want to see them as tier 7 BB's because I want to see them fighting their contemporaries, the tier 10 cruisers, not a bunch of BBs mostly built at the end of WW1.  I also do not want to see her turned into a god damned reward ship.  I'd much rather see her be a second "heavy cruiser" split off from the tier 9 USN CA.  That is, you could choose to research the Des Moines or the Alaska, much in the same way that in WoT, you can (or used to be able to) research the Tier 10 Object 140 or the T-62 medium tanks off of the Tier 9 T-54 medium tank in the Russian tech tree.

 

EDIT:  Regarding the RN and German tech trees and a BC line, I see no reason whatsoever that a BC line has to go all the way to tier 10.  I have no problem with it starting at tier 3, off it the tier 3 cruiser, and continuing up to tier 6 or 7 where it then either merges into the main  BB line, or simply ends, similar to the way the IJN tier 8 DD Akizuki ends its line.

 

Edited by Crucis
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,569
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
9,486 posts
15,773 battles
13 minutes ago, Crucis said:

During the WW1 era, true battlecruisers were of basically the same tonnage as battleships, but exchanged tonnage in armor for tonnage for propulsion.

 

13 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Calling the Alaska class "battlecruisers" is a very questionable thing because they simply do not fit the mold of a proper WW1 era battlecruiser.  They were basically battleships with reduced armor for more engines. 

 

@Crucis, aren't these the same thing? I'm not busting your balls because I agree with you; I do NOT want to see Alaska as a tier 7 BB, but would much rather see her as a silver tier 10 USN CA.

But, seriously; those two quotes just kill me. To me they're the same thing, but I'm not the history buff you are. I do know that BC's went out of fashion in 1941, about the same time Bismark waxed Hood.

And when you said "The USN built exactly ZERO ships as  battlecruisers." you were correct, but at least they STARTED to build them; they weren't just "make believe" ships. They damn sure never completed any, which in a way is sort of sad as both Lexington and Saratoga would have been beautiful ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,477
[SALVO]
Members
18,945 posts
19,191 battles
11 minutes ago, Umikami said:

 

 

@Crucis, aren't these the same thing? I'm not busting your balls because I agree with you; I do NOT want to see Alaska as a tier 7 BB, but would much rather see her as a silver tier 10 USN CA.

But, seriously; those two quotes just kill me. To me they're the same thing, but I'm not the history buff you are. I do know that BC's went out of fashion in 1941, about the same time Bismark waxed Hood.

That was a mistake in what I wrote. 

The second sentence in the second quote should read "The Alaskas were not battleships that reduced armor for more engines."

Edited by Crucis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,569
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
9,486 posts
15,773 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

That was a mistake in what I wrote.

Quick, call a moderator and get the whole damn post banned! Jeez dude, who DOESN'T make mistakes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,477
[SALVO]
Members
18,945 posts
19,191 battles
3 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Quick, call a moderator and get the whole damn post banned! Jeez dude, who DOESN'T make mistakes?

There are mistakes and there are mistakes.  This one was a little more severe because it greatly changed what I meant to be said.  It's been fixed now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,569
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
9,486 posts
15,773 battles
8 minutes ago, Crucis said:

It's been fixed now.

Where would you put one of the Saratoga class BC's if they HAD been built? Personal interest only.

@Crucis EDIT:  Regarding the RN and German tech trees and a BC line, I see no reason whatsoever that a BC line has to go all the way to tier 10.  I have no problem with it starting at tier 3, off it the tier 3 cruiser, and continuing up to tier 6 or 7 where it then either merges into the main  BB line, or simply ends, similar to the way the IJN tier 8 DD Akizuki ends its line.

It would be better for an incomplete line if, at the end, you could continue up the original tech tree; so if you got and fully upgraded Akizuki, you could continue on with researching Yugumo. The BC line for the RN could do the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,477
[SALVO]
Members
18,945 posts
19,191 battles

The problem that Lexington class battlecruisers face is that they're the only true battlecruisers the US ever planned.  They might be better off as a premium ship, perhaps tier 7.  And yes, probably use the Saratoga name.  The Lexingtons had eight 16" guns in 4 twin turrets, which is the same as the Colorados and Nagatos, so they wouldn't be overpowered in that respect.  They did have a planned speed of 33 kts, which is quite fast, but their armor was rather weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
[AXANR]
Members
3,380 posts
17,299 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

Regarding WoWS, I don't want to see them as tier 7 BB's because I want to see them fighting their contemporaries, the tier 10 cruisers, not a bunch of BBs mostly built at the end of WW1.  I also do not want to see her turned into a god damned reward ship.  I'd much rather see her be a second "heavy cruiser" split off from the tier 9 USN CA.  That is, you could choose to research the Des Moines or the Alaska, much in the same way that in WoT, you can (or used to be able to) research the Tier 10 Object 140 or the T-62 medium tanks off of the Tier 9 T-54 medium tank in the Russian tech tree.

 

 

I can see both sides of the argument; I think they'd fit in naturally as a t10 branchoff of the USN tree, but I think it's more likely we'll see them as a t7 premium BB as WG is more likely to do it as a premium which will sell a ton of ships than as a 1-ship branch off of the USN CA line as you described. Modeling a single t10 isn't going to make them money as it won't generate excitement the way a new line does. The only way we get Alaska as a t10 is if she's a reward ship like Stalingrad, and I think most of us would prefer a ship that desired not get locked behind a Clan Battles achievement wall. But a t7 premium would get a ton of sales, and with good reason; I could see her being a very fun foil for Scharnhorst. 

Scharnhorst vs Alaska would be an interesting matchup. Alaska would be a little lower on HP (4000 tons lighter) and have a bit less armor. Similar ROF, but Alaska has  12" guns instead of 11" and they'd likely be more accurate. She gives up torps, but as implemented I think she'd be more of a midrange fighter as opposed to Scharn's brawling emphasis anyway. Of course, per national flavor Alaska will have better AA and worse secondaries (although the two have similar secondary batteries in number and type of secondary guns.) Alaska has a much weaker armor belt, but slightly thicker deck armor, which further supports her being a mid to long range specialist compared to Scharn in the game meta. Scharn is more survivable, Alaska can put out more damage at distance. Inside 10km, Scharn has the upper hand. Outside 10km, Alaska probably does. I think the better armor, torps, and secondaries would probably make Scharn a stronger ship overall, and Alaska might be a bit weak anyway for a t7 BB...you could always give her hydro or radar, or adjust the strength/frequency of her heals, to make her balanced. 

In a perfect world, @Crucis, I agree that Alaska should be a t10 cruiser, but I want Alaska in the game and I think t7 BB would be where WG is most likely to add her. 

 

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,569
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
9,486 posts
15,773 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

The Lexingtons had eight 16" guns in 4 twin turrets, which is the same as the Colorados and Nagatos, so they wouldn't be overpowered in that respect.  They did have a planned speed of 33 kts, which is quite fast, but their armor was rather weak

So what I hear you saying is they would be true "Battlecruisers" after the RN model; very cool and very right for tier 7, spot on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,569
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
9,486 posts
15,773 battles
1 hour ago, poeticmotion said:

Similar ROF

Scharnhorst fires 3 times per minute?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,477
[SALVO]
Members
18,945 posts
19,191 battles
1 hour ago, poeticmotion said:

 

I can see both sides of the argument; I think they'd fit in naturally as a t10 branchoff of the USN tree, but I think it's more likely we'll see them as a t7 premium BB as WG is more likely to do it as a premium which will sell a ton of ships than as a 1-ship branch off of the USN CA line as you described. Modeling a single t10 isn't going to make them money as it won't generate excitement the way a new line does. The only way we get Alaska as a t10 is if she's a reward ship like Stalingrad, and I think most of us would prefer a ship that desired not get locked behind a Clan Battles achievement wall. But a t7 premium would get a ton of sales, and with good reason; I could see her being a very fun foil for Scharnhorst. 

Scharnhorst vs Alaska would be an interesting matchup. Alaska would be a little lower on HP (4000 tons lighter) and have a bit less armor. Similar ROF, but Alaska has  12" guns instead of 11" and they'd likely be more accurate. She gives up torps, but as implemented I think she'd be more of a midrange fighter as opposed to Scharn's brawling emphasis anyway. Of course, per national flavor Alaska will have better AA and worse secondaries (although the two have similar secondary batteries in number and type of secondary guns.) Alaska has a much weaker armor belt, but slightly thicker deck armor, which further supports her being a mid to long range specialist compared to Scharn in the game meta. Scharn is more survivable, Alaska can put out more damage at distance. Inside 10km, Scharn has the upper hand. Outside 10km, Alaska probably does. I think the better armor, torps, and secondaries would probably make Scharn a stronger ship overall, and Alaska might be a bit weak anyway for a t7 BB...you could always give her hydro or radar, or adjust the strength/frequency of her heals, to make her balanced. 

In a perfect world, @Crucis, I agree that Alaska should be a t10 cruiser, but I want Alaska in the game and I think t7 BB would be where WG is most likely to add her. 

 

 

 

I don't think that Scharnhorst vs Alaska would be an interesting matchup at all.  It's just a lightly armed battleship vs an oversized cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
[AXANR]
Members
3,380 posts
17,299 battles
16 hours ago, Umikami said:

Scharnhorst fires 3 times per minute?

Yes. Scharn has a 20 sec reload, so 3 times per minute (although Navweaps shows the actual ROF in real life was 3.5 times per minute...presumably ROF was reduced in-game for balance reasons.). Alaska had a ROF of 2.4-3 times per minute. 

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

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_11-545_skc34.php

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[TBOW]
Members
53 posts
3,663 battles

Calling the scharnhorst a battlecruiser REEEEEE

On 17/01/2018 at 3:47 PM, FierceNemesis said:

Since the U.S. is represented by all it's cruisers so far why aren't you adding the last one - the Alaska. It is called a "large heavy cruiser" but in fact it is a Battle-cruiser that falls under the heading made famous by ships like the Hood. This ship needs to be added to the American ships available for game play.  The German's have Sharnhorst, the Japanese have the Maya class so why not the Alaska.

Thank you for your time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,772 posts
9,341 battles

Hey

One thing I saw was that the Alaska might become a 750K Free XP ship similar to the Kronstadt.  It would not have to fit the whole argument of BB versus battlecruiser.  I think this makes sense or even bringing it out as a stand alone premium is ok.  Either way, if it has good reviews, seems decent, then I'm interested. 

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[SWNG]
Beta Testers
103 posts
3,838 battles

According to Zerra Channel, Alaska is coming with the 0.7.8 update......along with the Le Terrible DD. Wow! Did not see that coming so soon.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
75 posts
12,001 battles

CB-1 Alaska was a BattleCruiser, or as offically designated "Large Cruiser" to differentiate it's evolved role vs the RN's spectacular detonatable BattleCruisers 

"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today" -Admiral Beatty at Jutland after 2 BC's detonate  25 mins apart.

per wiki-

"The idea for a large cruiser class originated in the early 1930s when the U.S. Navy sought to counter Deutschland-class "pocket battleships" being launched by Germany. Planning for ships that eventually evolved into the Alaska class began in the late 1930s after the deployment of Germany's Scharnhorst-class battleships and rumors that Japan was constructing a new battlecruiser class.[7][D] To serve as "cruiser-killers" capable of seeking out and destroying these post-Treaty heavy cruisers, the class was given large guns of a new and expensive design, limited armor protection against 12-inch shells, and machinery capable of speeds of about 31–33 knots (57–61 km/h; 36–38 mph).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,240
Members
4,094 posts
15,015 battles
On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 11:38 PM, strykerpsg said:

According to Zerra Channel, Alaska is coming with the 0.7.8 update......along with the Le Terrible DD. Wow! Did not see that coming so soon.

I'll believe it when she's actually available. WG announced the USN Cruiser split in early November of last year. We finally saw it 6-7 months later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
563
[PVE]
[PVE]
Beta Testers
2,052 posts
4,930 battles

Considering that recent videos about the Alaska stat preview revealed that while Alaska is in the files, it cannot be played by the reviewers, thus cannot be tested on for full review. No way that Alaska is coming next patch with such little time to do proper testing/review.

 

Musashi was revealed on September last year and didn't come live till January

Kronshtadt was around February and didn't come live till May or Jun

 

I expect Alaska to be similar from reveal to release in about 4-5 months so maybe by around Thanksgiving this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×