Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Dano07_

How is the Alaska and the Azuma ?

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
71 posts
105 battles

Just wondering about those FXP ships.

I found the Alaska a tough nut to crack in battles - seems to take a lot of dmg and is often in the last 3 ships left on a red team - but it doesn't seem to score as well as it can tank.

Don't much on the Azuma but I heard it scores higher on dmg but less so in tankiness ?

Any thought , thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,098
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,918 posts
26,905 battles

The RD version from what players thought when the boats came out:

Alaska: gudboat

Azuma: stay away from here. The Yoshiono is the ship the Azuma should have been. She has crap armor.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[USA-N]
Members
785 posts
9,238 battles

The Alaska is a great example of Russian bias. It has brutal guns, easily able to delete other cruisers, and do significant damage to all BBs. It has a citadel that is basically impossible to hit, being situated below the waterline. It has a huge HP pool, around twice that of the tier X Zao, and more than 40% greater than other tier X cruisers. It also has the radar consumable, making it deadly to DDs, as well as to cruisers and BBs.

It has the speed and agility to disengage when required, being a cruiser. It is immune from Asashio deep water torpedoes. It has fantastic AA, and can even be a formidable secondary setup.

In short, there is nothing the Alaska can't engage and threaten, and there is nothing that really threatens it.

It is a classic case of Russian bias.

  • Funny 2
  • Confused 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,362 posts
11,269 battles

If you like the USN battleships and cruisers, and want something with slightly more accurate guns that reload faster than an Iowa and hit harder than a Buffalo, Alaska will be a fun ship for you. I picked her up the day after she went on sale in the tech tree, and she's one of the ships I absolutely do not regret buying or building a dedicated captain for. She's tanky enough to not die instantly at the start of the battle if a ship looks in your direction the wrong way, and the guns feel comfortable and reliable (as someone who is very used to USN BB gunnery and loves the CA guns). The USN radar is definitely helpful for the times you need to hunt a destroyer or remind a cruiser why it's not a good idea to hide in smoke in front of you, and the speed allows you to move where you need to. However, it is definitely a cross between the CA and BB lines and definitely feels like it at times. 

 

Azuma is generally an avoid ship according to most players, especially when Yoshino exists and is arguably better in most ways. Both are rather squishy to incoming fire (basically every battleship in your MM range overmatches your 25mm plating), and your citadel was built with a giant shell magnet inside. I've heard people make jokes about the citadel looking like a coffin because it knows you're going to need one if you play that ship. The guns are more accurate than any other large cruiser (Azuma and Yoshino have a better dispersion curve than the other large cruisers that all share the Graf Spee curve), and definitely start fires a lot more, but the playstyle is kind of meh from the games I've seen. Both pretty much end up as long range HE spammers, and the normal IJN cruiser line tends to do that better in pretty much every way. Yoshino does get torps that make it a little more usable as an area denial ship, but neither one really has the flexibility or ability to adapt that Alaska has.

 

Azuma would most likely work really well with a typical IJN CA captain or BB captain, more so the cruiser captain based on how it plays. Alaska can work with a CA or BB captain in a pinch, but really shines with a dedicated build (to the point where I'd recommend a dedicated build on a specific captain). The IJNs would work better as captain trainers if you don't have a 19 point captain, but Alaska works better as a captain trainer when you have a dedicated 19 point commander farming elite commander xp in her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
255
[FG]
Members
566 posts
4,799 battles
1 hour ago, SidTheBlade said:

It has a huge HP pool, around twice that of the tier X Zao, and more than 40% greater than other tier X cruisers.

Not sure where you are getting your stats from, but the Alaska has 60k health, while most Tier X heavy cruisers are between 50k and 58k.  

It is also 2k more than the Azuma, and 10k less than the Kronshtadt, the other Tier IX large cruisers.

There are a lot of good/great things about the Alaska, but its HP pool is pretty standard for being a Tier IX large cruiser. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,149
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
1,708 posts
17 minutes ago, SovereignEagle said:

Not sure where you are getting your stats from, but the Alaska has 60k health, while most Tier X heavy cruisers are between 50k and 58k.  

It is also 2k more than the Azuma, and 10k less than the Kronshtadt, the other Tier IX large cruisers.

There are a lot of good/great things about the Alaska, but its HP pool is pretty standard for being a Tier IX large cruiser. 

The Zao has the least health of any of the tier 10 CAs, actually, sitting at 40k health. The Alaska has 20k more than the Zao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[DUD]
Members
706 posts
2,470 battles

Alaska is hands down one of my favorite ships.   The guns are super accurate and can delete cruisers.   It can even citadel battleships.   It has an amazing fire chance with great AA.   The only downside is you need to run fire prevention because it can get lit up with 4 fires at once.   Fire are what really kills you.   The radar is really good too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
255
[FG]
Members
566 posts
4,799 battles
1 minute ago, Zaydin said:

The Zao has the least health of any of the tier 10 CAs, actually, sitting at 40k health. The Alaska has 20k more than the Zao.

I am aware. There is however, a huge difference between +50% health and +100% or double. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,149
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
1,708 posts
Just now, SovereignEagle said:

I am aware. There is however, a huge difference between +50% health and +100% or double. 

In the case of the Zao vs Alaska, it's more about 33% more, roughly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
335
[WOLFG]
Members
548 posts
12,642 battles
3 minutes ago, Zaydin said:

The Zao has the least health of any of the tier 10 CAs, actually, sitting at 40k health. The Alaska has 20k more than the Zao.

Smolensk only has 32k or something like that, less than even some tier 7 cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[USA-N]
Members
785 posts
9,238 battles

My mistake, I was thinking of the other Russian bias cruiser, the Puta Reek Ho. It has 76k health, "around" double that of the Zao.

If an entity has 50% more of something than another entity, this is measured from the base of the smaller entity. If an entity has 50% less of something than another entity, this is measured from the base of the larger entity.

This is the plain meaning of words. It is not a matter of opinion. Hence, the Zao 30% HP than the Alaska, the Alaska has 50% more than the Zao. The Puta has nearly 100% more than the Zao, and also has the hidden citadel, like the Alaska.

You cannot argue with Russian bias. It's real.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,149
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
1,708 posts
6 minutes ago, Colonel_Potter said:

Smolensk only has 32k or something like that, less than even some tier 7 cruisers.

I said CA, not CL. Smol is a CL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[DUD]
Members
706 posts
2,470 battles
1 minute ago, SidTheBlade said:

Puta Reek Ho

haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
235 posts

The Alaska is a really great ship, it totally fits my playstyle, not heard much good about the Azuma and don't currently own it

 

As someone who plays mostly cruisers its great to have a ship in an Alaska that you can pretty much go head to head with same tier BBs and pretty much boss them, just get your angling right and they are in a world of trouble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,573
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,303 posts
6,266 battles

I have both, and I like both.

Alaska had a lot of hype surrounding her, and she lives up to that hype. She's a fat Baltimore with wonderful guns and good durability. Play her like a big CA and you'll be fine, especially when bullying actual CAs and CLs.

Azuma has also seen the effects of Alaska's hype, but not in a good way.  Her reputation of being "fragile" and "underwhelming" in firepower in armor is based solely on comparison to other CBs, full blown battlecruisers, and Yoshino. Look at Mouse's review for more specifics, but Azuma is actually a GOOD ship when you play her as intended: Like a Japanese cruiser. 

Alaska can bow-tank and even brawl on occasion, Azuma cannot. Alaska can rely mainly on her AP shells, Azuma must change shells on the fly and even then lean more on HE. Alaska has US AA and radar which gives her a lot of flexibility in self-defense and consumables, Azuma does not. Azuma will never hold up to peoples' standards if played as a pocket-Yamato holding the line or as if she were an Alaska with a rising sun flag. Her niche is right alongside ships like Ibuki, Brindisi, and Saint-Louis, but the twist is that those 310mm main guns CAN put the hurt on heavier ships with their AP more frequently than her 203mm compatriots. Play Azuma at range with modules and points to put wiggle in her tush and she's a really good performer. And on a final note, for a CRUISER her durability is top-notch. Azuma is easily in the top 3 or 4 for cruiser durability at tier 9, it's only when compared to battleships and tier 10s that this starts seeming lackluster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,486
[CAST]
Members
4,996 posts
3,513 battles
10 hours ago, SidTheBlade said:

The Alaska is a great example of Russian bias.

giphy.gif

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[D3BT]
Members
371 posts
6,199 battles

Play Azuma correctly, and you will reap the rewards.... :Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,414
[CYNIC]
Members
2,638 posts
6,217 battles
12 hours ago, Dano07_ said:

Just wondering about those FXP ships.

I found the Alaska a tough nut to crack in battles - seems to take a lot of dmg and is often in the last 3 ships left on a red team - but it doesn't seem to score as well as it can tank.

Don't much on the Azuma but I heard it scores higher on dmg but less so in tankiness ?

Any thought , thanks.

I don't have the AK, but I have the PR, and it will delete most CAs in 1 salvo.  You can rush a rock humping cruiser like a DM and straight delete it.  At the same time the ballistics are more favorable to using islands as cover assuming you're not too close, something the stalin and its laser guns can't do.  In the PR at least one can angle to use all 4 turrets while laughing off most BB shells.  In the 15k+ range you can land 8k AP salvos on BBs while they deal about 3500 at a time to the ship.  The PR event was crap, the ship however is good, and the AK is equally as potent.

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.

×