as per title/ A Jammer consumeable that blocks all shared intel, radar, hydro, PT, RDF, detection indicator, CV spotting.   don't google Jammer for pics (NSFW) like I did. edit : there has been some confusion among the replies to this topic, mostly I think because not everyone wants to read the OP, preferring to go off the title alone. This is not a pro/anti radar proposal, but a proposal for a universal change to detection mechanics, with the help of a consumeable "Jammer". The effect would be to create a communications and radio detection dead zone around the jammer, affecting ALL ships, allied and enemy. This would not affect the human eyeball.    Here is a brief history of electronic countermeasures :   The first usage in combat of electronic countermeasures was in 1904, by Russian cruisers, to disrupt radio communications between Japanese battleships, thereby disrupting Japanese bombardment of the Russian controlled Port Arthur naval base.   At the start of WW1 in 1914, Goeben and Breslaw escaped British pursuit with the help of electronic countermeasures to disrupt Royal Navy communications, both cruisers found refuge in Turkish waters. During the 1940-41 Blitz on London, the UK employed misdirection of German bombers with false signals (the bombers relied on a network of radio beacons for navigation). A more detailed article on the history of Electronic Countermeasures can be found here : https://www.rfcafe.com/references/electronics-world/electronic-countermeasures-electronics-world-december-1959.htm   Future tech tree releases will need fresh gimmicks and counters to make them interesting to play. At the same time, future tech tree releases have to find searoom in WOWS to avoid being washed onto a lee shore by enemy CV spotting, cruiser radar, dd (and bb) hydro), and of course, reverse Priority Target (oh, i have been targeted, what/who and where could it be?), detection indicator (c.f reverse Priority Target) My suggestion is a general purpose jammer that would block ALL enemy intel, including radar, ship to ship communications (CV spotting for example), hydro, PT and anything else.    Mounted as a Jammer consumeable 3 charges Duration 20 secs Range 7 km Reload 120 secs Tiers 6-10   I would like to imagine such a consumeable being useful for a future Italian dd and/or bb tech tree, or perhaps a revision for general existing game mechanics injecting some fizz into development, and some healthy disruption to the game. Instead of smoke, .. jammers!   scenario 1 : CV rocket squadron locates enemy dd, drops fighter squadron to perma spot, positions for attack run, calls for allied players to focus fire the dd,  Jammer activated, dd disappears from minimap, remains visible and attackable by the CV air squadron, but immune to indirect fire from other players. scenario  2 :  X Cruiser activates radar on a cap, detects enemy Y, asks for focus fire on Y, target Y activates Jammer and disappears from minimap, can only be targeted by X cruiser if direct line of sight. scenario 3 :  BB (Roma for example) is detected within concealment range, BB activates Jammer, no effect until the ship that has detected the BB gets within Jammer range (7 km), Jammer consumeable has only 10 seconds left but for those 10 seconds only the ship (a dd for example) can target the BB, or can see it on the minimap. The attacking dds radio comunications (shared intel, hydro, radar, PR and detection indicators) are all offline/disactivated. scenario 4 ! X DD sneaks behind island cover close to enemy Y BB on the other side to launch a torp attack, X DD leaves island cover and launches torps. Y BB immediately takes evasive action AND activates Jammer. Y BB suffers major dmg, but survives the encounter because for 20 seconds enemy team allies of X DD are unable to recieve X DD intel and target.   What do you think? Which (if any) future tech tree/nation would be a good fit for this concept?   I have looked for previous suggestions of this type on the forum, but have only found one such topic/thread, a year ago, which only concerns radar jamming but which debates the question quite extensively :