Jump to content
  • 0
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Cagliostro_chan

TASM 1 and consumables

9 comments in this topic

Question

Players
4,607 posts
5,708 battles

So, I doubt it works, because people would've then maybe talked more about it, but just to make sure, because I cannot be bothered to waste 2 million creds to switch around modules now that prices are back up again:

 

Target Acquisition Mod says:

1243808512_TASM1.png.f89184eaa1b4548a996020178439d262.png

 

Surveillance radar says:

Radar.png.e18049ccd060bbbbfe5a3e1d36c4bcb7.png

 

Just from wording, that 9 km would be "assured acquisition of enemy ships", which would get boosted by TASM 1. And I think I read radar basically extents this hard spotting distance for the ship that radars, which is why it can see beyond 8 km in cyclones. I haven't tested it though and maybe others have. Does it affect radar/hydro or no? Do we have conclusive proof? On the one hand, 13.5 km radar suddenly would be silly, but on the other hand, I wouldn't doubt WG to not have left the door open. Just, I doubt players never figured it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 1
[WG-EU]
WG Team, WoWs Wiki Team
3,499 posts
11,841 battles

TASM1 stacks only with torpedo spotting of hydro. Ship spotting ranges of hydro and radar are absolutely fixed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[ETD5]
Players
295 posts
1,650 battles

TASM1 doesn't extends Radar and Hydro ship detection ranges. The "Assured Acquisition" range is 2km for all ships. Having TASM1 extends that range from 2 to 3 km. Not sure if affects the torpedo acquisition of Hydro (I've checked the wiki and doesn't seems to stack). However, it stacks with Vigilance and also Vigilance stacks with Hydro for torpedo detectability, so hope someone with more knowledge can provide more light with torp spotting ranges.

 

EDIT: @Commander_Cornflakes answered the torp detection thing.

Edited by Vlad_Vado
Add user feedback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Players
4,607 posts
5,708 battles

Yeah, pretty much what I thought. Just thought maybe someone knew a source or had tested it. Thanks for responses though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,914 posts
7,006 battles

I mean, it would be kind of hilarious to extend Stalingrads radar out to 17.55km :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Players
4,607 posts
5,708 battles
2 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

I mean, it would be kind of hilarious to extend Stalingrads radar out to 17.55km :Smile_trollface:

It'd make TASM1 actually worthwhile in builds and one could argue about options, as for example Cleveland with 9.1 or so concealment and 9 km radar is obviously stronger alround, but Cleveland would still be playable at 10 something km concealment, but with 13.5 km radar in return. I considered the whle matter due to the changes to CE, which will nerf my Edinburgh to 9.2 km concealment and create a 200 m window where I cannot counter-radar. Which makes me sad.

 

Naturally, there'd be clear victims to such an indirect radar range buff and it'd be silly as hell, especially on Russians, as you pointed out.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Players
429 posts
881 battles
5 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

It'd make TASM1 actually worthwhile in builds and one could argue about options, as for example Cleveland with 9.1 or so concealment and 9 km radar is obviously stronger alround, but Cleveland would still be playable at 10 something km concealment, but with 13.5 km radar in return. I considered the whle matter due to the changes to CE, which will nerf my Edinburgh to 9.2 km concealment and create a 200 m window where I cannot counter-radar. Which makes me sad.

 

Naturally, there'd be clear victims to such an indirect radar range buff and it'd be silly as hell, especially on Russians, as you pointed out.

It would actually be interesting, since the Russian CAs are balanced by the fact that hardbass that they play on the ships can be heard from the next continent even with CE mod, so would actually be a interesting trade off if TASM1 actually stacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,914 posts
7,006 battles
11 minutes ago, Riselotte said:

It'd make TASM1 actually worthwhile in builds and one could argue about options, as for example Cleveland with 9.1 or so concealment and 9 km radar is obviously stronger alround, but Cleveland would still be playable at 10 something km concealment, but with 13.5 km radar in return. I considered the whle matter due to the changes to CE, which will nerf my Edinburgh to 9.2 km concealment and create a 200 m window where I cannot counter-radar. Which makes me sad.

 

Naturally, there'd be clear victims to such an indirect radar range buff and it'd be silly as hell, especially on Russians, as you pointed out.

Trading your own concealment for a better radar would indeed be an interesting tradeoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Players
4,607 posts
5,708 battles
7 minutes ago, howardxu_23 said:

It would actually be interesting, since the Russian CAs are balanced by the fact that hardbass that they play on the ships can be heard from the next continent even with CE mod, so would actually be a interesting trade off if TASM1 actually stacked.

Frankly, I'd take it. Chapayev can already de facto counter-radar with only one -10% modifier, having some 11 something km concealment but 17+ km radar where you could effectively radar three caps at once is just insane, thus... 

2 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Trading your own concealment for a better radar would indeed be an interesting tradeoff.

It'd be interesting, though it would need a reduction to like 20-25% range increase max. Even then it'd be incredibly strong. The issue I see really is that the change from a game balance perspective is not needed and has too many side effects just to make TASM1 an option worth considering instead of CSM1. At this point WG could take out TASM1 and just leave the choice of CSM1 and SGM3. Nothing of value would be lost. So, making it useful would be nice.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×