23 SyberSmoke Beta Testers 66 posts 2,435 battles Report post #1 Posted July 9, 2015 There is is, the simple question. Has there been any mumbling about Wargaming releasing the Alaska as a premium ship in the same vein as the Ishizuchi? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5,661 Macabe Alpha Tester, Members, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers 12,413 posts Report post #2 Posted July 9, 2015 All we currently know is that it is slated for tier 6. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
23 SyberSmoke Beta Testers 66 posts 2,435 battles Report post #3 Posted July 9, 2015 Snazzy! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,440 Sirus_Patton Members 3,243 posts 1,579 battles Report post #4 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) It'll either be a tier 10 BC, or it'll end up as a low-tier US BB with 3/4 of it's AA stripped for "balance". They'll throw in some made up hull modifications too if it's low-tier, since it was decommissioned in the same state it was commissioned in. Should point out it will never have it's historical 4.5rpm rate of fire at low tier either, and is likely that even at tier 10 it would only get 3-3.5. Edited July 9, 2015 by Sirus_Patton Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4 M3gaTank Alpha Tester 119 posts 1,622 battles Report post #5 Posted July 9, 2015 It'll either be a tier 10 BC, or it'll end up as a low-tier US BB with 3/4 of it's AA stripped for "balance". They'll throw in some made up hull modifications too if it's low-tier, since it was decommissioned in the same state it was commissioned in. Should point out it will never have it's historical 4.5rpm rate of fire at low tier either, and is likely that even at tier 10 it would only get 3-3.5. I think it will probably branch off from either the Cruisers or BBs not its own branch. If it branches of Cruisers, then it will have intact AA. If it branches off BB, it will have nerfed AA. Unless of course, WG decides to NOT do that and reverses the Iowa and NC AA nerf which would be swell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,440 Sirus_Patton Members 3,243 posts 1,579 battles Report post #6 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) I think it will probably branch off from either the Cruisers or BBs not its own branch. If it branches of Cruisers, then it will have intact AA. If it branches off BB, it will have nerfed AA. Unless of course, WG decides to NOT do that and reverses the Iowa and NC AA nerf which would be swell. Honestly there are enough designs that the US could have a full battlecruiser tree from tier 2-10 without an issue. And even though several were converted into CVs or never laid down, I'm fine with it given the majority of the Russian tech tree will be nothing but paper designs the Russians couldn't have built. As far as it's AA, it came off the line with the same AAA firepower as the North Carolina which was deemed too powerful for tier 8, so if it came in at say tier 6 it would have nothing like what it was equipped with. Edited July 9, 2015 by Sirus_Patton Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
157 Rotary_Rocket Beta Testers 1,413 posts 454 battles Report post #7 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) All we currently know is that it is slated for tier 6. Tier 6, oh that's right it fits in BB line of bad designs that should have never been tried. The thing is it has a single rudder and couldn't turn or take a hit. Edited July 9, 2015 by Rotary_Rocket Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,440 Sirus_Patton Members 3,243 posts 1,579 battles Report post #8 Posted July 9, 2015 Tier 6, oh that's right it fits in BB line of bad designs that should have never been tried. The thing is it has a single rudder and couldn't turn or take a hit. Actually, it's an excellent battlecruiser design, which is what it is in a nutshell despite official nomenclature of "Cruiser of exceptionally heavy displacement". Over 200mm of belt armor and 9 12"/50 caliber main guns firing 4.5 rounds per minute with a staggering AA suite. Her roll was to steamroll cruisers and lead fleets of heavy and light cruisers, not to act as a battleship. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
855 Carrier_Taiyo Beta Testers 2,420 posts 1,809 battles Report post #9 Posted July 9, 2015 I can't wait to see this ship Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
73 TryckSh0t Beta Testers 312 posts 1,096 battles Report post #10 Posted July 9, 2015 Personally, I'm hoping the Alaska, B65, and Germany's P-Class are tier X alternatives that top off the heavy cruiser lines. They don't belong in the battleship line, IMO, because the only place they'd fit is tier 4 or 5, which is an insult to those ships. At top tier, they could do their intended job of hunting down lesser-armed cruisers with extreme prejudice, but would probably be utterly useless against destroyers and proper battleships. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
23 SyberSmoke Beta Testers 66 posts 2,435 battles Report post #11 Posted July 9, 2015 Well what ever they do...I am waiting to see what happens. Some times there has to be compromises for good game play sadly (less AA) but reality would be far less fun to play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
6,799 IronWolfV Alpha Tester, Beta Testers 30,523 posts 6,106 battles Report post #12 Posted July 9, 2015 I was hoping it would end up the tier 10 in one of the cruiser lines with the DM being the other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
605 Mourneblade Alpha Tester 2,410 posts 2,897 battles Report post #13 Posted July 9, 2015 All we currently know is that it is slated for tier 6. yeah.... about that... The Alaska should be the same Tier as the Scharnhorst...wouldn't you think?... I mean she is not as well armored as the Scharnhorst but she does have a bit better firepower... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
605 Mourneblade Alpha Tester 2,410 posts 2,897 battles Report post #14 Posted July 9, 2015 I was hoping it would end up the tier 10 in one of the cruiser lines with the DM being the other. uhm those BCs... Alaska and Scharnhorst would get crunched at tier ten.... t7 is about where they belong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
64 VioletZer0 Members 418 posts 233 battles Report post #15 Posted July 9, 2015 We know for a fact that, as far as WoWS is concerned, battlecruisers are battleships. So it'll be considered as such. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
6,799 IronWolfV Alpha Tester, Beta Testers 30,523 posts 6,106 battles Report post #16 Posted July 9, 2015 uhm those BCs... Alaska and Scharnhorst would get crunched at tier ten.... t7 is about where they belong Against a DM? Or a Zao? Take an Alaska any day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
605 Mourneblade Alpha Tester 2,410 posts 2,897 battles Report post #17 Posted July 9, 2015 We know for a fact that, as far as WoWS is concerned, battlecruisers are battleships. So it'll be considered as such. and we know for a fact that they are splitting the BC and BB line... so that we will have separate lines... unless the latest Dev interview was a lie lol. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
605 Mourneblade Alpha Tester 2,410 posts 2,897 battles Report post #18 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Against a DM? Or a Zao? Take an Alaska any day. yeah... then again a Nelson, Admiral, KGV, Colorado, and Nagato can crunch a DM and Zao also.... Edited July 9, 2015 by Mourneblade Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
64 VioletZer0 Members 418 posts 233 battles Report post #19 Posted July 9, 2015 and we know for a fact that they are splitting the BC and BB line... so that we will have separate lines... unless the latest Dev interview was a lie lol. Linky please. I know that they said that as far as matchmaking is concerned BCs are BBs. That was way early in development though so that might have changed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
605 Mourneblade Alpha Tester 2,410 posts 2,897 battles Report post #20 Posted July 9, 2015 Linky please. I know that they said that as far as matchmaking is concerned BCs are BBs. That was way early in development though so that might have changed. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/1697-what-we-know-about-ships-updated-25062015/ This is the Tech tree as we know it now.. Red squares are BCs As to the interview.. my mistake they are splitting the CL/CA line first... Japanese translator issues apparently lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
262 Samurai_Mouse ∞ Beta Testers 1,280 posts 2,433 battles Report post #21 Posted July 9, 2015 USS Alaska? Tier 6?? THIS USS Alaska? Are you out of your frikkin minds?? Even the cleveland isnt that heavy and gods know theres a ton of threads about how OP THAT ship is.. Lets look at its direct competitor.. If alaska is tier 6 my granny is a Popsicle. tier 8 maybe.. but never tier 6. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
605 Mourneblade Alpha Tester 2,410 posts 2,897 battles Report post #22 Posted July 9, 2015 USS Alaska? Tier 6?? THIS USS Alaska? Are you out of your frikkin minds?? Even the cleveland isnt that heavy and gods know theres a ton of threads about how OP THAT ship is.. Lets look at its direct competitor.. If alaska is tier 6 my granny is a Popsicle. tier 8 maybe.. but never tier 6. She is way too crunchy to play at tier 8 IMHO... she only has 9" belt armor....her reload rate at best is every 20 secs....I don't know.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,921 mr3awsome Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester 11,461 posts 1,963 battles Report post #23 Posted July 9, 2015 It'll either be a tier 10 BC, or it'll end up as a low-tier US BB with 3/4 of it's AA stripped for "balance". T Should point out it will never have it's historical 4.5rpm rate of fire at low tier either, and is likely that even at tier 10 it would only get 3-3.5. Tier 10? Unlikely. Too weak compared to the other available candidates. I don't believe that the RoF was 4.5. Navyweaps gives the much more believable figure of 2.4-3.0. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
262 Samurai_Mouse ∞ Beta Testers 1,280 posts 2,433 battles Report post #24 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) She is way too crunchy to play at tier 8 IMHO... she only has 9" belt armor....her reload rate at best is every 20 secs....I don't know.. i dont know either to be honest, but it stll seems to me that Alaska is a massively capable ship. Speculating here so bear with me.. We know that WG increased the capabilities of the Murmansk ( because its russian ) while at the same time, nerfing the capabilities of american ships, so perhaps they'll nerf the alaska into near oblivion like they have all other american ships?? Like I said, I dont know. I want the Alaska in game and have for quite some time. Its the closest thing the americans have to a battle cruiser.. Its a great ship, but at tier 6 crunchy or no, it would dominate the entire field without even breaking a sweat. Oh and tier 8?? Yeahh, we have the Atago. Also verrrrrry crunchy. good with chocolate.. Seriously, except for Atagos torpedo's i'd put it and Alaska about even on both the crunchy scale and the firepower scale.. Edited July 9, 2015 by Fog_Battleship_Mikasa Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,921 mr3awsome Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester 11,461 posts 1,963 battles Report post #25 Posted July 9, 2015 USS Alaska? Tier 6?? THIS USS Alaska? Are you out of your frikkin minds?? Even the cleveland isnt that heavy and gods know theres a ton of threads about how OP THAT ship is.. Lets look at its direct competitor.. If alaska is tier 6 my granny is a Popsicle. tier 8 maybe.. but never tier 6. Thats thinking of it as a cruiser. As a Dreadnought it is against Fuso and New Mexico. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
