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

Alaska shoud be a Tier 7 Battleship

128 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

165
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
522 posts
9,489 battles

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?

OzBKvhA.jpg

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 3
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,526 posts
10,950 battles

...and all this is based on your testing the ship, right? Supertesters and community contributors are really the only people right now who should be giving opinions on ships they've actually tested. The rest of us should wait rather than conjecture based on just stats.

  • Cool 4
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,501 posts
6,150 battles

But Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are both battleships and Alaska herself is a large cruiser... Why would they suddenly reclassify them into the incorrect trees?

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,145
[HINON]
Privateers
6,266 posts
3,308 battles
12 minutes ago, _Rumple_ said:

...and all this is based on your testing the ship, right? Supertesters and community contributors are really the only people right now who should be giving opinions on ships they've actually tested. The rest of us should wait rather than conjecture based on just stats.

 

Conjecture and discussion is good. Don't worry about who's testing what, or who should have the 'authority' to share their opinions— have conversations about it. Besides, STs can't talk about the ship anyway.  

  • Cool 4
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,716
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,533 posts
12,810 battles

it should have been, however, you don't make as much money on T7's as you do on T9s.   I firmly believe the balance choices that lead to the super-cruisers all being classified as "cruisers" rather than capital ships is a 100% money grab.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
909 posts
6,089 battles
22 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

it should have been, however, you don't make as much money on T7's as you do on T9s.   I firmly believe the balance choices that lead to the super-cruisers all being classified as "cruisers" rather than capital ships is a 100% money grab.

Really? Scharnhorst at tier 7 has smaller guns sure but she definitely has battleship armor. Alaska has neither tier 7 caliber battleship guns or battleship armor. I think she make a lot of sense as a heigh tier cruiser. Also if Alaska goes for free xp it won’t cost me a dime. 

Edited by Forgottensoldier117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,659
[O-PN]
Members
9,125 posts
10,593 battles

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were both armored far better than Alaska, they proved they could withstand heavy firepower, Alaska had 12 inch guns, on a platform with in essence cruiser armor, if a battleship had hit Alaska or Guam, it would have been a disaster.

 

Scharn and Gneis were, in effect, battleships. Alaska and Guam were, in effect and reality, very large cruisers.

 

It's that simple, based just on armor, taking nothing else into account.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
311 posts
39 battles
37 minutes ago, _Rumple_ said:

...and all this is based on your testing the ship, right? Supertesters and community contributors are really the only people right now who should be giving opinions on ships they've actually tested. The rest of us should wait rather than conjecture based on just stats.

I don't agree, conjecturing based on stats is a perfectly valid activity for us, we have all played the game and have the capacity to extrapolate based on what we already know about the game mechanically.  Not all conjecture is well-reasoned, likewise, not all supertester feedback is well-reasoned either.

Edited by TheSeventhSeeker
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,716
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,533 posts
12,810 battles
3 minutes ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were both armored far better than Alaska, they proved they could withstand heavy firepower, Alaska had 12 inch guns, on a platform with in essence cruiser armor, if a battleship had hit Alaska or Guam, it would have been a disaster.

 

Scharn and Gneis were, in effect, battleships. Alaska and Guam were, in effect and reality, very large cruisers.

 

It's that simple, based just on armor, taking nothing else into account.

Alaska's belt armor was good enough to hold up to 14 inch rounds from most nations.  It was thicker than the Kongos.  It would not have been the disaster that people make it out to be.  She has a 9-inch inclined belt, which is more than any other "cruiser" commissioned by any navy, at any time.  Alaska's guns also hit much harder than Sharnhorst's.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,195
[RKLES]
Members
12,132 posts
13,793 battles

Sort of see the point of this thread since Alaska sort of falls into Cruiser/ Battlecruiser/ Battleships grey area, but it is a cruiser and a late in the war class of cruiser. So it belongs in top couple of tiers along with other similar heavy cruisers. Like the new premium Russian CAs they added gave 12’ BB guns on them, but that does not mean you stick them down in tier 5 or 6, no you place them in tiers 9 or 10 where they belong. One of the nice things about WOWs is how ships of particular time and relatively similar technological levels are grouped together in a tier, which while not completely historical still gives the game more historical feel, and Alaska in tier 7 does not fit. Athough it will see tier 7s sometimes unless Wargaming were to change MM to be like they have it in WOTB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,716
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,533 posts
12,810 battles

She's a cruiser because that's how she was sold to the politicians.  She filled a classic battlecruiser role.  She is a battlecruiser.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,659
[O-PN]
Members
9,125 posts
10,593 battles
2 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

Alaska's belt armor was good enough to hold up to 14 inch rounds from most nations.  It was thicker than the Kongos.  It would not have been the disaster that people make it out to be.  She has a 9-inch inclined belt, which is more than any other "cruiser" commissioned by any navy, at any time.  Alaska's guns also hit much harder than Sharnhorst's.

I mean the overall armor scheme. The literal only place she had decent armor was the belt. If she took a BB shell anywhere else, blap. Alaska was a true battlecruiser, and we all know how heavy shells worked out for them. Scharn and her sister were in reality BBs with smaller caliber guns. More, a 9 inch belt, even inclined, isn't very much at all.

 

Therefore, in the game, Sharn gets to be a BB, and Alaska has to be a cruiser. Scharn and her sister would have obliterated Alaska had they faced off.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
311 posts
39 battles
Just now, crzyhawk said:

She's a cruiser because that's how she was sold to the politicians.  She filled a classic battlecruiser role.  She is a battlecruiser.

^

All of this is about soft stats anyway, the reason why Scharnhorst is tier 7 and Alaska will be tier 9 isn't the armor or anything like that, it's that cruisers in general have better soft stats, better sigma, dispersion, etc.  I don't see why WG doesn't just formally split Battlecruisers into their own class and give them intermediate soft stats.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,716
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,533 posts
12,810 battles

Alaska also had thicker deck armor than Scharnhorst.  Alaska's protection is not as bad as people make it out to be.  Alaska's belt was designed to provide protection against her own 12-inch guns, which penetrated like other people's 14-inch guns.  Her armor is just fine.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,195
[RKLES]
Members
12,132 posts
13,793 battles
27 minutes ago, RivertheRoyal said:

 

Conjecture and discussion is good. Don't worry about who's testing what, or who should have the 'authority' to share their opinions— have conversations about it. Besides, STs can't talk about the ship anyway.  

Lol with recent CC vids of the ship and real world historical info we can look up, there will not be a to much we don’t know about the ship now. ( Wargaming does use historical data when possible and as much as possible in their vehicles, with few adjustments sometimes for game balance of course.)

And as I stated in LittleWhiteMouse’s Alaska thread the Alaska will be slightly smaller and weaker version of Iowa Class BB just as it was in real life, and that is weaker in all characteristics. Hence the reason USN kept Iowa Class and scrapped Alaska Class after the war, because anything Alaska could do, Iowa Class could do better. But Alaska is a cruiser and that counts for something in game as training ship and will get Def AA which will be useful with CV rework close at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,195
[RKLES]
Members
12,132 posts
13,793 battles
1 minute ago, crzyhawk said:

Alaska also had thicker deck armor than Scharnhorst.  Alaska's protection is not as bad as people make it out to be.  Alaska's belt was designed to provide protection against her own 12-inch guns, which penetrated like other people's 14-inch guns.  Her armor is just fine.

Any idea if Alaska has turtleback armor or regular? Have not gotten the chance to pull her armor schematics yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[-ARM-]
Beta Testers
982 posts
9,810 battles
27 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Any idea if Alaska has turtleback armor or regular? Have not gotten the chance to pull her armor schematics yet.

I'd doubt it, neither Baltimore and Iowa have turtle-backs. Got to remember that Alaska was basically a scaled-up Baltimore.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
505
[SVF]
Members
1,522 posts
1,836 battles
1 hour ago, SpeedingBus said:

I approve of this idea. But WG can't charge as much if she's T7 instead of T9.

Though I would have preferred her as a T7 BB, Alaska's actually a touch more tanky as a T9 USN cruiser due to her 27mm plating (along with probably more HP too) - which allows her to bounce the 380/381mm guns she'll see from select T7-T9 battleships (and possibly the T10 Bourgogne that was teased in the devblog recently).  As a T7 BB she'd only have 25mm plating and get overmatched by such guns.

Edited by landcollector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
909 posts
6,089 battles
43 minutes ago, SpeedingBus said:

I approve of this idea. But WG can't charge as much if she's T7 instead of T9.

If she is available for free xp then she could be free depending on how you chose to get her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,873
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,043 posts
7,683 battles
1 hour ago, crzyhawk said:

She's a cruiser because that's how she was sold to the politicians.  She filled a classic battlecruiser role.  She is a battlecruiser.

I think there was a little more to her classification as a CB than just politics.  At the time the Alaska was built CCs as a concept had been made largely obsolete, and despite her impressive size and armament the Alaska was little more than just a really big cruiser built in repose to rumors of other nations, the Japanese in particular, building their own super cruisers. 

Here's a quote from an interesting book on the subject.

Quote

Much debate has arisen over Alaska’s unique rating—unique to the USN, at least, though perfectly familiar to the Germans. The choice not to repeat the battlecruiser rating indicates that the leadership saw Alaska as something different, and rightly so; commerce protection was the driving force behind the project, while Lexington had specialized as a heavy scout.[12] In a fleet engagement, Alaska would not form up with the battleships but would act as a screen for them, and since her design lineage extended back to the light cruisers of the Pensacola class, “large cruiser” may be appropriate.

Worth, Richard. Thunder in Its Courses: Essays on the Battlecruiser (Kindle Locations 345-350). Nimble Books LLC. Kindle Edition. “

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,939
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,832 posts
11,233 battles
2 hours ago, LL_JuneBug said:

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?

OzBKvhA.jpg

 

To detract from the outright negative tone and all some of this has - Were she treated as a battleship - Yes, she would be more a tier 7, maybe 8, design. 

 

HOWEVER, the devil is in the details, and while Scharn rode a line between BC and FBB, Alaska has been a large cruiser, specifically, quoted as almost being a "up scaled Baltimore Class cruiser". Which leans her more toward the cruiser line to start which, as cruisers go she is exceptionally powerful. And that's not to say that Baltimore in game, well, I actually tend to play it similar to a BB at times because of the bow armour and it holds up magnificently to all but maybe Yamato/Musashi. So, what she is in game, I've not seen a ton of vids yet, she's liable to be a very tanky cruiser unless she has a thinner bow plate.

 

Basically, Scharnhorst, and particular Gnei, are more like Bismarck's scrawny cousin, where as Alaska is more Baltimore's cousin that is like Arnold back when he did Conan the Barbarian, the first Terminator, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×