Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Chain_shot

Stealth or target aquisition?

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

848
[RELAX]
Members
1,132 posts
8,593 battles

What ship or what type of play would you take the Target Acquisition module over Stealth module?

 

Just wondering if anyone is using Target acquisition.

Edited by Chain_shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
63
[QQ7]
Members
483 posts
3,642 battles

Don't really know the answer to that one, but I highly doubt ANYONE uses Target Acquisition. You give up so much concealment to be able to see torps from a farther distance, spot ships further away (i think) and something else.

 

Tbh, It's never worth giving up concealment for those things. Ever. Especially in ships that have a high default detection range. My POV is, the more concealment you have, the better. I always run concealment expert and the module on my battleships and cruisers. (obviously in the tiers that have the module)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
664
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,739 posts
12,058 battles

The only ship I think of Target Aqu would be a gunboat DD like the Khab...and perhaps a DD hunting DD, maybe a Haida?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,203
[-RNG-]
Supertester
2,816 posts
3,777 battles

It was fun to use on the Palo Emilio (Italian DD in testing). That fuel smoke allowed me to get the jump on quite a few people as I move in full speed with 3km proxy spot... Issue was that with my detection it was risky to jump people to begin with. An agressive IT CA might benifit from it, especially combined with the smoke legendary mod where you can stay dark for longer. Yolo BBs like a brawling German can utilize it if you really are looking to take damage. 

 

It still is a huge tradeoff. Forced me to play very differently, as my concealment was horrific. The module itself could use some buffs. Imo it should be the BB go to (just based on principle)

Edited by _BBaby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,910
[WOLF3]
Members
22,410 posts
20,527 battles

TASM1 usage was something I did when I was new to the game.  It sounded good on paper to a new player at the time like me.  It seemed to look like it was something that make me more easily spot ships.  But it doesn't.  That's not how the mod works.  Take CSM1 and pretend TASM1 doesn't exist.  Certain ships like a set of Cruisers may take SGM3 instead of CSM1, but in general, you'll want CSM1.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
311
[STURM]
Members
576 posts
4,772 battles
8 minutes ago, Morpheous said:

The only ship I think of Target Aqu would be a gunboat DD like the Khab...and perhaps a DD hunting DD, maybe a Haida?

Problem is, Haida can't mound either mod, and most hunter DDs want to be able to sneak as close as possible to their targets, plus concealment is invaluable for getting away to do it again.

Target acquisition is just so weak compared to concealment. Even on BBs, the Germans have hydro, making it useless since it doesn't stack with hydro, and the Russians have (implausibly) good stealth that you want to maximize. None of the other nations want to get close enough to benefit, and better stealth lets them retreat and lick their wounds.

Honestly, as it is, that slot needs to be reworked. Concealment is such a no brainier in almost every situation, all slot 5 does is create an artificial power gap between tiers 7 and 8. DDs are hit hardest by it, due to their dependence on stealth.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,158
[GWG]
Supertester
22,784 posts
12,774 battles

The stealth module will help all the time where target acquisition is only useful if you are super close to a DD, island/smoke. I would go with stealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
224
[WK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
908 posts
12,294 battles

The problem with TASM1 is that it doesn't give any benefits like CSM1.  CSM1 gives +5% to dispersion from ships firing on you.  It's that 5% that I'd rather have, as it can make a difference, and has numerous times.  Sure, you might spot something first with TASM1, but once you are spotted, it's not going to help you, while CSM1's +5% dispersion thing will come in handy all the time.

 

If TASM1 has the same +5% dispersion thing, then I'd be more inclined to take it over CSM1 on more ships.  As is, I run CSM1 on everything right now, except on my Beta.  Beta uses TASM1, cuz lulz. :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
182
[AAA]
Members
867 posts
10,159 battles

I think Henry and khab are the only ships I don’t have stealth mod but I run steering 3 not target acquisition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,910
[WOLF3]
Members
22,410 posts
20,527 battles
5 minutes ago, wstugamd said:

I think Henry and khab are the only ships I don’t have stealth mod but I run steering 3 not target acquisition

Yeah, certain ships people will take SGM3 in that slot instead of CSM1.

I know a number of Cruiser players like in Henri IV, Mogami, Yoshino, etc. want SGM3.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,245
[FML]
Members
3,160 posts
13,485 battles
1 hour ago, Chain_shot said:

What ship or what type of play would you take the Target Acquisition module over Stealth module?

 

Just wondering if anyone is using Target acquisition.

The stealth module is obviously much stronger. 

Still, I run the target acquisition module on my Tirpitz mainly for memes during Ranked - fewer enemy ships means you can sneak up to DDscamping in their smoke, and unload secondaries and torps on them at point blank range. It’s so hilarious I still run it on that ship. 

But I suppose it’s the exception that proves the rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,956
[SALVO]
Members
22,908 posts
23,457 battles
1 hour ago, DolphinPrincess said:

Under no circumstances should a ship ever equip target Acquisition over Stealth module

Stealth is universally useful on every ship class and should always be taken (with very few exceptions via Legendary Mods)

Honestly, this sounds like a very good reason to revisit the entire Concealment module concept.  If it's sooooooo important that almost every ship should mount it, then perhaps it's either overpowered (or concealment itself is overpowered).  Or there aren't enough options for slot 5.  Actually, I think that it's a little of both. I've long held that the concealment upgrade module and the concealment expert skill should both be removed (and have ships rebalanced around this), and replace them with a camouflage upgrade module and camouflage expert skill, both of which would increase the dispersion of incoming shells.  

And at the same time, I'd suggest that the devs should add more upgrade module choices to slot #5.  Actually, I think that they should add more upgrade module options to ALL slots.  Increase the number of choices for each slot from around 4 choices to around 6 or so, none of which should be concealment modules.  That said, I don't really know if it'd be possible to add that many more new modules, because the number of things that can be upgraded isn't exactly unlimited in this game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,404
[OO7]
Members
5,756 posts
12,700 battles
2 hours ago, Morpheous said:

The only ship I think of Target Aqu would be a gunboat DD like the Khab...and perhaps a DD hunting DD, maybe a Haida?

The point of hunting dds is to sneak up on them and have better or same concealment. Plus you have a long enduring 3.5 km hydro, what's the point of increasing your torp spotting and assured detection range? 

Edited by Ducky_shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,782
[SYN]
Members
3,496 posts
11,935 battles

TA is literally not good for anything besides memes. But maybe you really like memes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,612
[OO7]
Members
3,832 posts
9,054 battles
2 hours ago, DevilFreak_ said:

Don't really know the answer to that one, but I highly doubt ANYONE uses Target Acquisition. You give up so much concealment to be able to see torps from a farther distance, spot ships further away (i think) and something else.

 

Tbh, It's never worth giving up concealment for those things. Ever. Especially in ships that have a high default detection range. My POV is, the more concealment you have, the better. I always run concealment expert and the module on my battleships and cruisers. (obviously in the tiers that have the module)

Plenty of people use it. It's a bad choice though.

Hell I'm pretty sure MrConway used it on steam once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,855 posts
9,017 battles

TA used to be viable before concealment module was buffed for whatever reason. Nobody has a clue why this happened, it is some mystery that WG themselves probably cannot answer whether for the amount of vodka was drunk at the time or other reasons. Why would they give the concealment module "+5% to the maximum dispersion of enemy shells fired at your ship" when it is the other significantly least used upgrade that is supposed to benefit aggressive play? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[5D2]
Members
203 posts
9,602 battles
On 9/23/2019 at 1:18 PM, Morpheous said:

The only ship I think of Target Aqu would be a gunboat DD like the Khab...and perhaps a DD hunting DD, maybe a Haida?

You'd be giving up rudder shift though for target acquisition :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
664
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,739 posts
12,058 battles
22 hours ago, Muninn77 said:

Problem is, Haida can't mound either mod, and most hunter DDs want to be able to sneak as close as possible to their targets, plus concealment is invaluable for getting away to do it again.

Target acquisition is just so weak compared to concealment. Even on BBs, the Germans have hydro, making it useless since it doesn't stack with hydro, and the Russians have (implausibly) good stealth that you want to maximize. None of the other nations want to get close enough to benefit, and better stealth lets them retreat and lick their wounds.

Honestly, as it is, that slot needs to be reworked. Concealment is such a no brainier in almost every situation, all slot 5 does is create an artificial power gap between tiers 7 and 8. DDs are hit hardest by it, due to their dependence on stealth.       

AHA.... Yeah just got a Haida from a crate...but duuuhooo yea, it is not high enough tier!  Thanks for the correction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,161
[DDMAF]
Members
2,132 posts
13,415 battles
23 hours ago, DolphinPrincess said:

Under no circumstances should a ship ever equip target Acquisition over Stealth module

Stealth is universally useful on every ship class and should always be taken (with very few exceptions via Legendary Mods)

Target acquisition extends the range of hydro. It's extremely useful for certain playstyles in German and Pan Asian dds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,161
[DDMAF]
Members
2,132 posts
13,415 battles
19 minutes ago, DolphinPrincess said:

It doesnt

Hmm....I don't believe I've ever used TA, but was always led to believe that it stacked with hydro in much the same way as Vigilance.

I can't seem to find a resource to confirm this though. Can anyone point me to an authoritative explanation of how TAS works, and how/if it stacks with hydro in any way? 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,639 posts
9,934 battles
12 minutes ago, legozer said:

Hmm....I don't believe I've ever used TA, but was always led to believe that it stacked with hydro in much the same way as Vigilance.

I can't seem to find a resource to confirm this though. Can anyone point me to an authoritative explanation of how TAS works, and how/if it stacks with hydro in any way? 

Thanks.

it improves torp detection but not the ship detection of hydro if memory serves.   Vig does the same.

 

21 hours ago, NeoRussia said:

TA used to be viable before concealment module was buffed for whatever reason. Nobody has a clue why this happened, it is some mystery that WG themselves probably cannot answer whether for the amount of vodka was drunk at the time or other reasons. Why would they give the concealment module "+5% to the maximum dispersion of enemy shells fired at your ship" when it is the other significantly least used upgrade that is supposed to benefit aggressive play? 

IDK if it was really viable, but the gap between the 2 was smaller back in the day.  I had several of them thanks to some missions giving them away, and i was too poor to buy the concealment upgrade.  it had its moments where it "shined".

 

but i do agree that it is confusing why they buffed the better of the 2 options.  I never really understood why.  IF the improved dispersion to enemy shells was moved over to TAS, then it might actually be viable.  I can understand if they want one to be more offensive oriented and one defensive, but improved dispersion can easily be argued to help both of those play styles.  I would also say, anything that improves concealment in this game is  massive.  perhaps removing it(and tweaking ships accordingly) and putting something else there would be better.  One could probably argue something similar for CE.   so many ships automatically take it first, if not their 2nd 4 point skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×