Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
BlackEagle117

Alaska Stats, thery are here!

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

134
[CAPGO]
Members
513 posts
3,264 battles

From the stats, it looks like advantages that the the Alaska will have against the Kronshtadt are AP normalization (which is slightly worse than regular USN heavy cruiser tech tree), slightly better accuracy on main guns, AA, and better armor scheme(which is kinda double-sworded as her rear turret has poor firing arc at 35 degree)

Kronshdadt will have better shell speed, better reload, better range, better torpedo protection, better radar range with shorter duration, better HP, slightly better turning circle, and she will also have better firing arc with her rear turret at 25 degree.

USN AP shell normalization is a scary thing, so I think Alaska will have her own play style but it is little bit disappointing.

She will look much better in port than Kronshdadt for sure though.

Edited by 0806sung
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[-TKS-]
Members
283 posts
5,596 battles
12 minutes ago, 0806sung said:

She will look much better in port than Kronshdadt for sure though.

Alaska is a good looking ship but the kronshdadt looks awesome , like a brawler .

 

still need to know acquisition method asap though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,062 posts
4,736 battles
17 minutes ago, 0806sung said:

From the stats, it looks like only advantage that the Alaska will have against Kronshtadt is AP normalization (which is slightly worse than regular USN heavy cruiser tech tree), slightly better accuracy on main guns and AA.

Kronshdadt will have better shell speed, better reload, better range, better torpedo protection, better radar range with shorter duration, better HP, and slightly better turning circle.

USN AP shell normalization is a scary thing, so I think Alaska will have her own play style but it is little bit disappointing.

She will look much better in port than Kronshdadt for sure though.

Because the Russian Navy is the greatest Navy of WWII.  Everyone in Russia knows this.  Duh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
88
[1-]
Members
578 posts
3,350 battles
3 minutes ago, Psicopro said:

Because the Russian Navy is the greatest Navy of WWII.  Everyone in Russia knows this.  Duh.

I know, right? Can't wait for the Russian battleship and carrier tech tree lines to come out. /sarc

Edited by _Marines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,587
[SALVO]
Members
16,627 posts
17,300 battles
3 minutes ago, Psicopro said:

Because the Russian Navy is the greatest Navy of WWII.  Everyone in Russia knows this.  Duh.

Because Stalin says so.  Or you go to gulag!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
[WOLF2]
Members
1,156 posts
12,862 battles
43 minutes ago, RagingxMarmoset said:

Nice. Thanks for sharing. Also, which a-hole gave him a thumbs down? Bad form.

+1 to piss off the A-hole :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,012 posts
9,214 battles

Is this gonna be fre exp shp? or coal? or...premium...or..gettting more confused by WG with all the stuff they are doing, starting to make me feel like its tanks...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
173
[SIDE]
Members
714 posts
3,149 battles
1 minute ago, Morpheous said:

Is this gonna be fre exp shp? or coal? or...premium...or..gettting more confused by WG with all the stuff they are doing, starting to make me feel like its tanks...lol

WG has kept their end of the deal with them saying they'll never "Sell" a T9 or 10 ship. So we can say at least we are safe from a "Premium Store" ship. However it is still up in the air as a Free XP, Coal, or god forbid the Steel. 

My safe bet is that it will be a Free XP ship. Player Demand is huge for this one ship right now, and after the IJN / British DDs are out and players blow all of that free xp on getting them all done. People will be rushing to buy more doubloons to convert Free XP to get that Alaska. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[LUCK]
Members
1,276 posts
19,088 battles
1 hour ago, RagingxMarmoset said:

Also, which a-hole gave him a thumbs down? Bad form.

There are soooooo many to choose from here.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21
[PHU]
Members
16 posts
6,891 battles

Also, I found something interesting. Alaska is treated as a normal cruiser, as far as fires are concerned. It has a 30 second base fire duration. Combined with the 13.8 second rudder shift, taking Damage Control Mod 2 is viable. So fires will only last 20 seconds (with mod and flag) and the Alaska has a 27mm bow. This thing will certainly have some bow tanking potential.

 

P.S. My Monty capt has BOS, which I plan on using in the Alaska. Hello 17 second fires! Take that Wooster/DM/Zao/Harugumo!

Edited by BlackEagle117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
251
[WOLF2]
Members
1,156 posts
12,862 battles
11 minutes ago, Merlox said:

WG has kept their end of the deal with them saying they'll never "Sell" a T9 or 10 ship. So we can say at least we are safe from a "Premium Store" ship. However it is still up in the air as a Free XP, Coal, or god forbid the Steel. 

My safe bet is that it will be a Free XP ship. Player Demand is huge for this one ship right now, and after the IJN / British DDs are out and players blow all of that free xp on getting them all done. People will be rushing to buy more doubloons to convert Free XP to get that Alaska. 

Well, let's see if we can figure this one out

Nobody has enough steel - and God forbids it

They already have one t10 US cruiser for coal (limited commodity) which received mixed reviews/acceptance … how likely are they to double down with a t9 US cruiser for coal right away after that, you can't buy them both?

It makes sense to have a free xp US cruiser to offer vs the Soviet no?

But, if I were WG trying to be unpredictable and piss everyone off - I would definitely make it the first t9 in premium store. Huge demand for this thing lol :)

… (I never said any of this and you never saw this post) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,031
[OPG]
Members
3,901 posts
5,503 battles
1 hour ago, 0806sung said:

From the stats, it looks like advantages that the the Alaska will have against the Kronshtadt are AP normalization (which is slightly worse than regular USN heavy cruiser tech tree), slightly better accuracy on main guns, AA, and better armor scheme(which is kinda double-sworded as her rear turret has poor firing arc at 35 degree)

Kronshdadt will have better shell speed, better reload, better range(no it doesn't), better torpedo protection, better radar range with shorter duration, better HP, slightly better turning circle, and she will also have better firing arc with her rear turret at 25 degree.

USN AP shell normalization is a scary thing, so I think Alaska will have her own play style but it is little bit disappointing.

She will look much better in port than Kronshdadt for sure though.

I think you're massively selling the Alaska short here.

For starters the Alaska having better dispersion and improved auto bounce angles is a massive advantage.  The main draw of these ships is their guns, and better handling guns is possibly the most important advantage to have.  Additionally the Alaska's slower shell speed isn't necessarily all bad.  Slower shells have inherently better vertical dispersion, and steeper angles of attacks leads to more plunging citadel hits.  In BBs like the North Carolina, I don't really consider their slow shell velocity to be a major disadvantage, and while it's too early to tell for sure I expect it will be a similar story with the Alaska.

The Alaska also has a lot of advantages in the survivability department.  Its 36mm deck armor makes it more resistant to standard 152mm IFHE and 203mm HE shells.  Fires on the Alaska don't burn as along, which further makes the Alaska more resistant to HE spam.  The Alaska has a 27mm bow, which while situational, does allow it to bow tank 380mm gunned BBs.  Furthermore the Alaska's citadel is much lower in the water, basically making it immune to being citadeled.  The Alaska's 10k lower HP pool is a disadvantage, but I am more than happy with all the other compensatory advantages it has.

I am really happy with these initial Alaska stats.  I think this ship looks amazing right now and that it will stack up very favorably in the face of the Kronrshadt. 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
134
[CAPGO]
Members
513 posts
3,264 battles
3 minutes ago, yashma said:

I think you're massively selling the Alaska short here.

For starters the Alaska having better dispersion and improved auto bounce angles is a massive advantage.  The main draw of these ships is their guns, and better handling guns is possibly the most important advantage to have.  Additionally the Alaska's slower shell speed isn't necessarily all bad.  Slower shells have inherently better vertical dispersion, and steeper angles of attacks leads to more plunging citadel hits.  In BBs like the North Carolina, I don't really consider their slow shell velocity to be a major disadvantage, and while it's too early to tell for sure I expect it will be a similar story with the Alaska.

The Alaska also has a lot of advantages in the survivability department.  Its 36mm deck armor makes it more resistant to standard 152mm IFHE and 203mm HE shells.  Fires on the Alaska don't burn as along, which further makes the Alaska more resistant to HE spam.  The Alaska has a 27mm bow, which while situational, does allow it to bow tank 380mm gunned BBs.  Furthermore the Alaska's citadel is much lower in the water, basically making it immune to being citadeled.  The Alaska's 10k lower HP pool is a disadvantage, but I am more than happy with all the other compensatory advantages it has.

I am really happy with these initial Alaska stats.  I think this ship looks amazing right now and that it will stack up very favorably in the face of the Kronrshadt. 

Thank you for correction, yes you are right, Alaska has 0.78km more range than Kronshtadt. 

I gotta admit, I may have not given enoguh credit to Alaska's strengths. I agree that Alaska will definitely be at least good or a very good boat. 

I guess my point was that, although Alaska's AP is going to be very powerful, it's no longer special trait for the USN. USSR Stalingrad at Tier 10 also gets "almost" USN-like normalization.

As per burning duration, I did not notice this. It's a very nice touch.

Overall, I agree Alaska is going to be amazing ship with different play style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
753 posts
10 battles
2 hours ago, 0806sung said:

From the stats, it looks like advantages that the the Alaska will have against the Kronshtadt are AP normalization (which is slightly worse than regular USN heavy cruiser tech tree), slightly better accuracy on main guns, AA, and better armor scheme(which is kinda double-sworded as her rear turret has poor firing arc at 35 degree)

Kronshdadt will have better shell speed, better reload, better range, better torpedo protection, better radar range with shorter duration, better HP, slightly better turning circle, and she will also have better firing arc with her rear turret at 25 degree.

USN AP shell normalization is a scary thing, so I think Alaska will have her own play style but it is little bit disappointing.

She will look much better in port than Kronshdadt for sure though.

Can a noob ask a question, what is AP Normalization?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
134
[CAPGO]
Members
513 posts
3,264 battles
18 minutes ago, UssIowaSailor said:

Can a noob ask a question, what is AP Normalization?

Basically, high tier USN AP shells are less likely to be deflected. There is mechanic called auto-ricochet. 

all AP shells are automatically bounced if the entrance angle is greater than 60 degree. However, high tier USN cruisers have 67.5 degree auto-ricochet value, meaning they can pen enemy armor at a greater angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,091
[WOLF3]
Members
5,978 posts
2,203 battles

@0806sung

Hey!  How'd you get a Dasha badge already?  I thought they were only available for tokens which are not available until the event starts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[FGNE]
Members
315 posts
2,403 battles
26 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

@0806sung

Hey!  How'd you get a Dasha badge already?  I thought they were only available for tokens which are not available until the event starts.

 

It’s not Dasha, it’s Alena:

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/168078-hidden-bonus-code-in-pin-up-video/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,091
[WOLF3]
Members
5,978 posts
2,203 battles

Thank you!  I don't know how I missed that thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
183
[JUICE]
Members
814 posts
6,369 battles

I really want this ship!!!!!! I hope she is a free XP ship as I have more than enough to get her!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
424
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,922 posts
3,548 battles

first off id like to note a few changes that i've seen from the dev blog to the data mines.  dispersion has gone from 216 to 207. the ricochet has gone from DM to a slightly lower +6*

interesting numbers: 

  1. 1 less spotter plane than a DM, otherwise equal
  2. burn and flood time equal to CAs
  3. the fire reduction percentage is higher than other t9 CAs, 39.96% of most other CAs, and 43.29% on Alaska (after looking into this more, it appears all free exp ships have this additional bonus to fire reduction chance:Smile_sceptic:)
  4. the "min H/V dispersion" are 50/110 the lowest values in the game, equal to RN destroyers. At this point if its being given to ST, i find it hard to believe its a placeholder value, which is what i initially expected the first time i saw this.

Continuing on about the "min dispersion values" because this is pretty huge. What i was unable to do was pin down exactly where in the formula these fit, however what I can say is Alaska as is has some of the best vertical dispersion in the game. 

 

Vertical Dispersion comparison

 I've chosen to add the Gearing to represent the destroyers. ideally i would use the new RN DDs, however people havnt played those yet. So i've chosen the gearing to represent the DDs for this. How does this chart work? its pretty simple. The ranges beneath the ships are where your shells could land between. generally speaking faster shells will always have worse vertical dispersion.

Range Alaska Zao Des Moines Moskva Gearing
10km 9.83 ~ 10.17 9.34 ~1 0.61 9.56 ~ 10.42 9.12 ~ 10.81 9.86 ~ 10.14
15km 14.87 ~ 15.13 14.52 ~ 15.45 14.70 ~ 15.29 14.31 ~ 15.65 14.96 ~ 15.04 
20km 19.90 ~ 20.10 X X 19.45 ~ 20.52 x

 

so while Alaska may have a horizontal dispersion worse than any of these ships, you wont get the "over under" brackets very often.

 

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.

×