Designing a new ship then releasing it only to ST (think of them as external internal staff who receive compensation of a non-monetary means) was perceived by folks here as huge offensive gesture utilizing a specific digit of the hand.Īdd to that perception the reality of a few comms coming from official sources wherein those comms were less than, how shall we say, polite? You now have the beginnings of a real barn burner. It's dependent on the caliber of the enemy.It has a whole lot to do with perception. Yes she can counter other cruisers but not tank a BB, especially T10. These players usually complain about Alaska being to squishy and their problem is that they try to play her more like a battleship rather than the battlecruiser she is. I have met players playing her more like a battleship while using BB-builds and they usually end up in similar fashion as the Royal Navy battlecruisers at Jutland. What I would warn players whom consider getting her about is that she is a CB and have more or less the same armor as a Des Moines and shall be treated as a battlecruiser. But so far I have gotten good results and fun games with my build, it suits my playstyle for the trio.īut to get back to the topic of this thread, my point was that the Alaska is very versitile and fun and can preform good both as a CA-build and as a BB-build. This might be true and probably I will change this when I take my time grinding down the USN BB line and find some tanky build that suits the Montana (already using tank builds on IJN & RN BBs). While on Alaska still is useful, on a BB. Ustny DE on Missouri is a real point waste. In the spam of HE meta (incoming Smolensk and Colbert) I really recommend it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |