Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
kishan99

Alaska or Kronstadt?

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

366
[DUD]
Members
706 posts
2,470 battles

Hey there,

 

I was wondering which is better of the two, Alaska or Kronstadt?  I have both and I kind of feel like they are the same.   Alaska seems to have better Dispersion and AA but they feel quite similar.  What are the key differences?  And speaking of making credits, which would be best?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,067
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,774 posts
6,023 battles

Their co-efficient is the same.  Whichever you do better with will earn more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,849
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
2,028 posts
14,039 battles

Well, the Kronstadt was so OP it was removed from sale, so there's that.

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
237 posts

I have the chance right now to rent the Kronstadt for 24hrs, I think having it for such a short time will just depress me ;-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,111 posts
44,174 battles

Khron is quite good. I would highly recommend, but not available. Because it's at tier 9, she gets more efficient XP so long as you attack the tier 10s.

Alaska is amazing at speed. Despite the US Navy denials. She is the most excellent real iteration of a battlecruiser.

XP efficiency depends on how well you shoot and how many you engage. So use that speed to flank a force. She can probably catch anybody by surprise and if you are wide, then she can citadel you.

I was immediately citadeled by another Alaska while sailing my Alaska in Randoms. That player sort of overextend , but made it work and got me and another cruiser on a push.

I was caught wide. I immediately lost steering, notsered an island and never made it. My team lost.

You might say it was a very very memorable experience. For some odd reason, maybe because I only sailed Alaska less than 5 times, but I could not for the life of me hit that player. The speed threw my aim off I guess. I was able to adjust next time I took Alaska out.

So I probably had a bad game. Or that player is protected by the Force.

Alaska is great despite my experience. But if you get one, then make sure you got it in black.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,111 posts
44,174 battles
9 minutes ago, Bluemoon51 said:

I have the chance right now to rent the Kronstadt for 24hrs, I think having it for such a short time will just depress me ;-(

Oh that would depress me too. If they ever offer her for sale, then she makes an awesome gift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,194
[K-POP]
Members
4,851 posts
13,468 battles

In theory they should have the same dispersion (or at least the same dispersion curve), but from people that have both Alaska tends to feel more consistent. Yes the faster shells and Russian radar are nice, but 305mm improved angle super heavy AP is just so enjoyable. 

As to credits, since they both have the same normal non-Missouri t9 premium modifier, it comes down to which you’d do better in. 

 

Some key differences: Alaska has the same improved angles and super heavy ap of the CA line but they’re bigger and hurt more, while Kron is just normal angles and shells. Kron gets shells to range quicker (and has quite a bit less float) and keeps more pen, but a lot of people seem to say Kron’s guns tend to miss or overpen a lot. In theory Kron is a better bow tanker but Alaska is overall tankier (full 27mm bow instead of 25mm plating, thicket 38/39mm plating on the deck that’s a lot more resistant to HE spam, and a waterline citadel). 

In my opinion, Kron fits the tech tree line slightly better in that a standard Moskva/CA captain would fit in pretty well, but if you’re going to use Alaska as a captain trainer it’s better to use a dedicated specialized build and farm elite commander xp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
521
[Y0L0W]
Members
590 posts
19,469 battles

Personally liked Alaska better. If Kronstadt had even remotely more consistent dispersion I'd say that one. But the dispersion is so wonky sometimes that it's really lets you down in important situations.

Think of a T9 Stalingrad with Kawachi dispersion on 9 guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,254
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
29,881 posts
25,782 battles

Not all the differences but the ones that really come to mind when comparing Alaska and Kronshtadt.

Below is the Artillery Chart for Iowa, Kronshtadt, Alaska.

I used Iowa because of how many users are familiar with how her shells behave, so one can contrast hers to Alaska and Kronshtadt's shell flight behavior.

VK8RqZK.jpg

 

Both have AP shells as their bread and butter.  Alaska has special bounce angles to her AP while Kronshtadt has very high penetration.  You can see in the chart just how much better Kronshtadt's raw AP Pen is compared to Alaska's.  For a Cruiser, if you are at range and are showing Kronshtadt your broadside, you're making a grave mistake, she has more than enough AP Pen to smash your Citadel from far out.

Kronshtadt has very high velocity shells but the dispersion can be really bad sometimes.  Alaska's shells have a bit of float to them, more than USN 16"/50 Battleship shells from Tier IX-X in terms of flight characteristics, not high velocity, but they are markedly more consistent in groups than Kronshtadt.

 

IOW, Kronshtadt has the shell velocity, low shell arcs that make it easy to lead targets even at range.  But it's her dispersion that is upsetting to her user at times.  When Kronshtadt is "on" she is "ON" and someone is about to have a bad day.  But when she's "off" you're double checking to make sure you're not sailing Battleship.  RNG can screw Kronsthadt over really bad in her dispersion at times like a BB.

 

Alaska has a 27mm bow and can face tank 381mm or less AP.

Kronshtadt doesn't have that but she has the belt armor to capably angle.  The moment you try to bow tank even a 380mm armed BB, you're going to get smashed.

 

Lastly, one is real (Alaska) and the other is Fake A.F. (Kronsthadt).

Spoiler

USS Alaska in 1944.

USS Alaska (CB-1) on November 13, 1944, in camouflage 32/1D, taken ...

And in WoWS.

GQANOdh.jpg

 

 

There's other differences, but I feel these points are what set the two Super Cruisers apart.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,729
[PVE]
Members
13,429 posts
28,176 battles

IMO it is not even a contest. Alaska is far superior to Kronshtadt. Both ships rely on the main guns as their damage dealers due to no torps and low range secondary guns. They are one trick pony's in that regard. 

Neither ship's HE is great but Alaska's is ok while Kronshtadt's is poor. Both rely on AP and Alaska's AP is harder hitting and more reliable. Alaska's guns are way more accurate as long as you can adapt to the slow travel time. Kronshtadt's guns are not accurate and while they hit hard at range (if you actually hit) they overpen mostly medium to close range (where you have a chance to actually hit something). Kronshtadt's guns behave like Roma's.

Kronshtadt does get a slightly better reload (1.3 sec better if both have MBM3) which in theory is definite + for it and is it's only real edge over Alaska gun wise. Before anyone says it yes the velocity of the shells is higher on Kronshtadt but again, as said, the accuracy sucks and that velocity causes way more overpens when you are in ranges where you can actually hit so no edge IMO.

IF they buffed accuracy and shortened the fuse on the AP to reduce overpens Kronshtadt could possibly take the gun title away from Alaska because faster shells are easier to hit with aim wise. As it is now though Alaska guns any day for me over Kronshtadt's. 

AA is a one sided roflstomp win for Alaska.

Armor is a win for Alaska as well. Kronshtadt is not horrible armor wise but Alaska can actually bounce some stuff and bow tank a little. The citadel is also harder to hit on Alaska. 

Maneuverability and speed is pretty much a wash between the 2. Kronshtadt is .5 knots faster with 10m better turn radius while Alaska has a 1.5 sec faster rudder. Nothing that is a major advantage.

Alaska has a .5km edge in sea and air detection over Kronshtadt.

As far as consumables go they both have a heal (same number) and both have radar (same slot). Kronshtadt's radar is a little further reaching while Alaska's last longer so kind of a wash IMO radar wise; maybe a slight edge to Kronshtadt due to 2km more range? Kronshtadt can slot a spotter (waste on this ship due to horrid long range accuracy) or DefAA (not much help with it's poor base AA) in the other slot. Alaska can slot Hydro or DefAA in it's other slot. With it's good AA DefAA can help and having hydro + radar is pretty powerful. Alaska can also slot a fighter or spotter in place of radar. Most will keep radar for PVP play but it gives options. Consumables wise Alaska has the edge. 

So in the end they are pretty equal in most things but Alaska pulls way ahead in guns, consumables, and AA. I stopped playing Kronshtadt and it became a port queen but to be fair that is strictly a gun issue. Just as with Roma (another port queen) I hate guns that don't put the shells where you aim them AND that give poor returns when they do hit. My opinion of Kronshtadt (and Roma) would go up a lot if WG ever fixed the terrible gun performance.

Edited by AdmiralThunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,108
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,295 posts
8,554 battles
3 hours ago, MidnightPhoenix07 said:

In theory they should have the same dispersion (or at least the same dispersion curve), but from people that have both Alaska tends to feel more consistent.

That's not true, the Alaska has standard Spee dispersion, the Kronshtadt has BB dispersion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27
[WOLF2]
Members
132 posts
15,981 battles

But there is nothing like dropping 3/4 cits on an opposing ship in a Kron.  Get yours in open water with the right angles, you can pretty much wreck anything.  Even T10 BBs.  Its like Vegas.  Alaska might win you $5 a hand more consistently, but Kron will hit the jackpot and drop $100k in your account once and a while.

 

NT

Edited by NightTerror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
316
[STW-A]
Members
831 posts
7,122 battles

Kron is like a Stalin with drunk gunners that needs to be mobile and angled instead of trying to bow-tank (which is the biggest trouble I see people get into with the Kron), you primarily use your AP and your main target is broadsiding cruisers and battleships.  Kron is completely capable of citadeling battleships at range.  My opinion, the Kron can take on BB a bit better than the Alaska, but the Alaska is more consistent against other cruisers because of the improved AP pen angles and the dispersion reliably cooperating; I've had games where I'm nailing everything I shoot with the Kron, and games where I almost can't hit anything I'm not right on top of.  Alaska also gets a nod for tankiness between the bow armor (Kron's bow is overmatched by 380+mm guns), deck armor (Alaska's 36mm deck is a big help because it can't get overmatched by BB AP) and how low the citadel is. Visually they're about the same size, but somehow the Kron feels like a bigger target.

Edited by Deviathan

Share this post


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

Thank you guys...

 

 

16 hours ago, Zaydin said:

Well, the Kronstadt was so OP it was removed from sale, so there's that

oh that is why people were telling me I was lucky when I pulled it from those Christmas containers.

 

16 hours ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

laska is great despite my experience. But if you get one, then make sure you got it in black

I have the Kron and the Alaska B (not the regular non black one)

 

16 hours ago, MidnightPhoenix07 said:

Yes the faster shells and Russian radar are nice, but 305mm improved angle super heavy AP is just so enjoyable. 

that is what I was debating about.  The Russian radar and shell speed is nice, but feels inaccurate.  The improved penetration angles on the Alaska is nice but the 10km radar is a bit to short (range) but the radar range mods pumps up the duration to 42 seconds which is sweet. 

 

12 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

IMO it is not even a contest. Alaska is far superior to Kronshtadt. Both ships rely on the main guns as their damage dealers due to no torps and low range secondary guns. They are one trick pony's in that regard. 

Neither ship's HE is great but Alaska's is ok while Kronshtadt's is poor. Both rely on AP and Alaska's AP is harder hitting and more reliable. Alaska's guns are way more accurate as long as you can adapt to the slow travel time. Kronshtadt's guns are not accurate and while they hit hard at range (if you actually hit) they overpen mostly medium to close range (where you have a chance to actually hit something). Kronshtadt's guns behave like Roma's

 

12 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Armor is a win for Alaska as well. Kronshtadt is not horrible armor wise but Alaska can actually bounce some stuff and bow tank a little. The citadel is also harder to hit on Alask

Thank you!  That is what I was wondering, Armor and HE wise.  I feel like they are amazing fire starters but Alaska's AP is so nice. 

 

15 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Lastly, one is real (Alaska) and the other is Fake A.F. (Kronsthadt).

that sums it up lol

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
583
[NMKJT]
Members
3,060 posts
8,293 battles

I prefer Kron, though Alaska is a lot safer. If you can deal with BB accuracy on a BB, it's pretty easy to deal with it on faster reload with better than average sigma. The consistency is less good than Alaska by a bit, though you can citadel even BBs pretty far out. I've citadeled an NC using the floatplane.

5 hours ago, kishan99 said:

oh that is why people were telling me I was lucky when I pulled it from those Christmas containers.

Yeah Kron got pulled awhile ago. I doubt she'll come back. Just like Musashi and Missouri, if you have her, you have a rare ship.

18 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

IF they buffed accuracy and shortened the fuse on the AP to reduce overpens Kronshtadt could possibly take the gun title away from Alaska because faster shells are easier to hit with aim wise. As it is now though Alaska guns any day for me over Kronshtadt's. 

Short fuze would be worthless. Being able to citadel BBs like Kron can is one of the things that make it unique - if you know how to work the soft nose you can punch back and then bully BBs so hard that some players will actually back off and run from you. WG could improve the accuracy (and make Kron OP AF) if they liked, but I would never accept a short fuze.

20 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Lastly, one is real (Alaska) and the other is Fake A.F. (Kronsthadt).

Kron was laid down, so not an actual fakeship. Just an unfinished wonder with engines that in real life might have ripped the screws apart (getting maximum rated HP per shaft from those engines would have probably destroyed the screws). But then we have Geo who goes almost 40 knots, so I'm not too hard on Kron's engine performance.

Edited by MnemonScarlet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,728 posts
11,839 battles

Alaska.  Just a  far more consistent ship.  Kron drives me up the walls with its inconsistencies.  It can't be relied on to make the key shots.  My general luck in teams with the Kron hasn't been as good either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,254
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
29,881 posts
25,782 battles
16 hours ago, Deviathan said:

Kron is like a Stalin with drunk gunners that needs to be mobile and angled instead of trying to bow-tank (which is the biggest trouble I see people get into with the Kron), you primarily use your AP and your main target is broadsiding cruisers and battleships.  Kron is completely capable of citadeling battleships at range.  My opinion, the Kron can take on BB a bit better than the Alaska, but the Alaska is more consistent against other cruisers because of the improved AP pen angles and the dispersion reliably cooperating; I've had games where I'm nailing everything I shoot with the Kron, and games where I almost can't hit anything I'm not right on top of.  Alaska also gets a nod for tankiness between the bow armor (Kron's bow is overmatched by 380+mm guns), deck armor (Alaska's 36mm deck is a big help because it can't get overmatched by BB AP) and how low the citadel is. Visually they're about the same size, but somehow the Kron feels like a bigger target.

When Kronshtadt was preparing for release, a lot of people were touting the "Russian Bias" and "Battleship in a Cruiser Slot" thing directed at her.  But when people tried to play her like a Battleship, they got rekt.

 

Another amusing thing Alaska and Kronshtadt share is if they have to engage a Cruiser that is prepared to fight them, i.e. they don't ambush them with killer AP and outright kill them or set them back so far in HP, these guys are in trouble.  They don't trade HE shells well with normal Cruisers.  The fires will also take their toll as Super Cruisers have Battleship fire burn duration, not the Cruiser one which is shorter.

 

I remember seeing a friendly Kronshtadt engage a bow on Buffalo, before Buffalo got her reload improved and was something at around 15 seconds.  Buffalo with slower reload and 203mm x6 firing HE was winning that fight.  Buffalo's bow could face tank 381mm AP shells, so 305mm Super Cruiser AP isn't sh*t.  Alaska would suffer the same thing.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
755 posts
72 battles
On 4/2/2020 at 9:29 AM, kishan99 said:

Hey there,

 

I was wondering which is better of the two, Alaska or Kronstadt?  I have both and I kind of feel like they are the same.   Alaska seems to have better Dispersion and AA but they feel quite similar.  What are the key differences?  And speaking of making credits, which would be best?

I have neither right now but are gunning for Alaska. What I have seen it seems like Kron has great pen but is very inconsistent while Alaska has better dispertion and great pen angles. I would say Alaska is a bit stronger over all, but as I said, im just going by what I heard and seen (from Flamu, Flambass, forums etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,108
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,295 posts
8,554 battles
5 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Another amusing thing Alaska and Kronshtadt share is if they have to engage a Cruiser that is prepared to fight them, i.e. they don't ambush them with killer AP and outright kill them or set them back so far in HP, these guys are in trouble.  They don't trade HE shells well with normal Cruisers.  The fires will also take their toll as Super Cruisers have Battleship fire burn duration, not the Cruiser one which is shorter.

It's one of the weaknesses of all CBs....they're generally hard countered by any cruiser that can angle and spam HE.  Poor DPM + no overmatch + poorer dispersion + double the fire burn time is not the recipe for efficient DPM trading.  

This is why the Alaska is so strong...it still struggles massively against any cruiser that angles well enough, but the improved AP ricochet means it's far better suited to dealing with angled cruisers as it punishes them harder for slight mistakes, and in some cases even prevents them from using all of their guns. 

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,536
[PSA]
Members
5,116 posts
3,732 battles

Both are great ships, although only Alaska is currently available.

Alaska: Improved pen angles AP makes it very reliable against angled targets and absolutely melts cruisers. Shells are extra floaty, which is both a blessng and a curse. You can shoot them over islands easily, but it takes forever for those shells to land at max range. But those shells that land tend to plunge deep. Good dispersion with good sigma means consistently rewarded good aim. Decent HE. Lower health pool, but tankier due to everywhere 27mm plating and 36mm deck. Alaska is best used as an island brawler as her AP pen goes from 'meh' at max range to 'battleship? what battleship?' up close and personal. And when Alaska's shells hit cruisers, it generally tends to reliably be for very large damage numbers. You don't ever want to play a cruiser spotted up close by an Alaska.

Kronshtadt: Absurdly fast shells and amazing AP pen. Can reliably citadel broadside battleships at any range. Shell base dispersion is poor (BB dispersion), but sigma is good. You'll still land most of your shells where you aim, but those that don't fall where you aim tend to show up days later in Kansas. That being said, because of her super high velocity shells, it's actually easier to hit a cruiser at max range who's not a complete potato sailing straight non stop. Up close is more problematic as her AP tends to overpen thin targets quite easily. HE is okay-ish. Kronshtadt has noticeably more health ... and with pleasant surprise, is noticeably tankier now that it was pre-IFHE change as her entire midsection now has 27mm plating rather than the 25mm prior. Oh, and this ship also has *amazing* firing angles. Both forward and rear aiming with all your turrets still keeps your armor in standard auto bounce territory. Kronshtadt is best used as a flanker to try and catch battleships in a cross fire as she can absolutely tear apart broadsiding BBs due to her obscene pen and AP dpm.

image.thumb.png.267253f0307f94da4f5913d2ac8bf53f.png

Above: Kronshtadt with 27mm everywhere but the very tips.

Edited by KaptainKaybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
739
[NUWES]
Members
3,385 posts
12,287 battles

Alaska is generally better than K-stadt in most cases.

K-stadt's shells have better velocity but her accuracy (thanks mainly to dispersion) is actually much worse, the shells do a bit less damage (I believe) and most crucially she lacks Alaska's improved autobounce angles. The poor dispersion and lack of autobounce are big and will leave you with a lot of misses and non-pens against CAs and BBs who understand angling. 

I thing she is more durable than Alaska is from the bow but Alaska is more durable from all other angles. Plus Alaska has good AA and K-stadt's is pretty poor. AP bombers can at K-stadt alive. K-stadt has standard Soviet radar and Alaska has standard American. K-stadt's is more likely to spot something but the duration isn't long enough for her to do much with it. 

To a large degree it will boil down to which playstyle you like. Neither is a bad ship but I think Alaska's overall package is somewhat better than K-stadt's and the ship is easier to use. The only instance I can think of where K-stadt is clearly superior is bow-tanking a BB with big guns. 

 

 

Edited by Tzarevitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41
[GNOME]
Beta Testers
142 posts
6,849 battles

I hope this isn't considered horrible necro'ing.

 

I gotta wonder, with the addition of so many more super-cruisers/battlecruisers, is the Kronshtadt really that crazy OP?  I rarely see them.  It honestly seems like the Alaska is a better ship.  K-Shtadt might be better than Azuma and Aegir, on-par with Siegfried?

I will say that this is coming from somebody who is a middling player at best who only has one proper supercruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×