Should surface radar work through land masses?

[KyourakuShunsui]

I just came back to the game after a long time off, and I've noticed that they have given a number of cruisers surface radar to help combat DDs. I think it is a great idea, however I think it is unrealistic that a ship can be behind a land mass/island/mountain but still get 360 degrees of visibility. I've had multiple occasions where a cruiser was behind an island but my DD still got spotted from the surface radar. Sorry if others have posted about this. I did some searching but didn't see any topics specific to this.

[Lert]

Been addressed before. Many, many times. Realistically, no, radar should not work through landmasses.

[Mesrith]

Nope.

[IceSerpen7]

Realistically - no, neither radar nor sonar should. On a side note, they also shouldn't work through other ships either. From a programming perspective - probably not a bad idea to keep it simple, just to avoid performance issues.

[Wyngs_2015]

Ooohhh boy, here we go again lol. But you're right, it shouldnt. Neither should Hydro IMO.

[Amogussy]

As said before, WarGaming goes for gameplay before historical accuracy.

[DakotaSurfer]

Satellite yes, radar no, but WG can't figure it out.  Just another fluke we put up with.  Personally I feel with that issue it should be removed until they can fix it properly.  Sonar and radar both should bounce back off the first object it detects up to it's detection limit.

[Lert]

 just to avoid performance issues.

 

Shouldn't be an issue, since spotting is calculated server side, not client side.

[Captain_Dilbert]

From a realism perspective (yeah, I know this is just a video game so why go bringing actual physics into the discussion) it should not work.  I also don't believe that it should work from a game perspective.  I really dislike it when I have an island to one side of me and I'm scanning in-front/side and all of a sudden I'm detected by radar from a cruiser on the other side and now what ever is in-front of me starts lighting me up.  Since the cruiser was behind the island I did not even know it was a potential threat and now my options are limited....with the usual option being I get sunk.

[Patton5150]

Realistically, no it should not.

Gameplay wise, no it should not.

But it would require additional coding.  So thats why it is what it is.  WG is WG.

[Estimated_Prophet]

Just out of curiosity; If I can run in a destroyer from C to B on Fault Line, keeping that tiny island in B between me and a Wyoming that decided to park itself on the other side, carefully keeping and eye on other potential enemies that might spot me, AND NEVER GET SPOTTED by the Wyoming because of the spotting mechanics before I finally rounded the island and fed him six torps from my Fujin; Why is it so difficult for those same mechanics to be applied to the 'spotting' mechanic of Radar and Hydro?

 

As I said; more out of curiosity that any real desire to complain. If spotting is spotting, visual, radar, or hydro and measured against the location of a target ship, why can't they all be restricted in the same manner by terrain?

 

The basic mechanic vis-a-vis terrain would seem to be the same in all cases; while some form of 'stealth value is ignored inside 'x' range in 'y' circumstance,' (generally smoke related,) being the only exception.

[Brofisticus]

No, it shouldn't. However, it should have a longer duration by several orders of magnitude. 

[StingRayOne]

NO

[IceSerpen7]

 

Shouldn't be an issue, since spotting is calculated server side, not client side.

 

Depends on the server capacity.

[HazeGrayUnderway]

LOL, IRL Radar is working 100% of the time regardless of time, weather, and is definitely not restricted to a few kilometers in range, yet in WoWS, they can be used for a few seconds, only less than a handful of times, and are restricted to ahistorical short ranges 

 

[ForgMaxtor]

The in-game mechanics of Radar, Hydro, and just spotting in general are at best 1st cousins to the way these things work IRL.

 

Not only can radar not see through land masses -- it's strictly LOS -- but WWII-era radar tech had trouble resolving especially smaller ships (i.e., destroyers) that were simply in the general vicinity of a large land mass, due to reflections and echoes.  Basically, if you want to talk realistic radar modeling, you can argue a destroyer within about 2km of an island should almost always be invisible to radar, regardless of the vector.  Of course, in some ways the in-game modeling of radar nerfs its capabilities as well -- real radar doesn't have limited duration or charges, and over open water, even early WWII-era radar could usually detect ships out to much greater ranges than depicted in the game -- 15km or so for small ships like destroyers, 30+km for BBs.

 

As for hydro, it was really primarily an ASW thing.  It generally wasn't useful for precise plotting and targeting of surface ships at all.  "Active" hydro isn't very useful on surface contacts because wave noise and reflections off of the water surface mess up the signal.  "Passive" hydro can pick up the prop and hull sounds of a surface ship, which can provide a general bearing, how fast the props are turning (and therefore a general idea of speed), and a vague idea of distance based on strength of the sound.  But none of this would be precise enough pinpoint a ship and gain a gunnery solution.  And hydro could sometimes pick up the sounds of torps in the water but certainly didn't give precise enough info to determine the torps' exact track.

 

The other big thing that relates to all types of spotting in WoWs is that ships in WoWs have "Borg" spotting -- once one ship on a team spots an enemy, all friendies immediately have this spotting info as well.  This is not remotely the way it works IRL.  Even in modern naval combat with advanced C2 tech, relaying accurate spotting info between distant ships takes a certain amount of time.  In the time periods the game covers, info often had to be relayed by coded radio telegraph, or even flag or signal lamp, so passing detailed spotting info could potentially take much longer -- minutes, sometimes dozens of minutes or more.

 

Personally, I'd love to see an early 20th century period  hardcore naval command simulator game with e.g., realistic spotting and target acquisition mechanics, but this would be a VERY different game to WoWs.  It would have a very high learning curve and a much slower pace.  I suspect such a game would have too small a potential player base to be really viable as a commercial product.

 

But whatever... WoWs is a fun game and I enjoy it for what it is; a fast-paced shoot-em-up loosely based on historical naval combat. 'Sfun.

[HazardDrake]

Realistically, no it should not.

Gameplay wise, no it should not.

But it would require additional coding.  So thats why it is what it is.  WG is WG.

Wouldn't be that hard. All it would have to do is apply a check to see if the ships are in direct line of sight to each other. Most of the code could be re-used from the regular spotting mechanics. Most of the work would be in testing to make sure nothing breaks.

[Herr_Reitz]

Yes because it is meant to offset the evil, horrid little destroyer. 

 

Otherwise, no, no and no. 

[chewonit]

As said before, WarGaming goes for gameplay lazy before historical accuracy.

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[RoundsDownRange]

And while we are on the excitingly fun topic, Sonar was made to detect subs not ships, Hydrophones could be used for both but was not as good as Sonar for sub detection.  Hydrophones picked up sounds in the water from the screws of ships and subs allowing operators to get a fix by triangulation and or bearing plot by sound strength.  Hydrophones at close range could hear the voice of sub crew and if both a sub and ship deployed them, they could pass information and or orders, only issues with that is, you never knew who else was listening to your conversation, it was not secure at all.

[IceSerpen7]

 

Personally, I'd love to see an early 20th century period  hardcore naval command simulator game with e.g., realistic spotting and target acquisition mechanics, but this would be a VERY different game to WoWs.  It would have a very high learning curve and a much slower pace.  I suspect such a game would have too small a potential player base to be really viable as a commercial product.

 

 

It might be viable as a single player game, but would be way too slow and complex for a multiplayer setting. It would end up being something similar to Silent Hunter with full realism settings turned on.

 

[RoundsDownRange]

The in-game mechanics of Radar, Hydro, and just spotting in general are at best 1st cousins to the way these things work IRL.

 

Not only can radar not see through land masses -- it's strictly LOS -- but WWII-era radar tech had trouble resolving especially smaller ships (i.e., destroyers) that were simply in the general vicinity of a large land mass, due to reflections and echoes.  Basically, if you want to talk realistic radar modeling, you can argue a destroyer within about 2km of an island should almost always be invisible to radar, regardless of the vector.  Of course, in some ways the in-game modeling of radar nerfs its capabilities as well -- real radar doesn't have limited duration or charges, and over open water, even early WWII-era radar could usually detect ships out to much greater ranges than depicted in the game -- 15km or so for small ships like destroyers, 30+km for BBs.

 

As for hydro, it was really primarily an ASW thing.  It generally wasn't useful for precise plotting and targeting of surface ships at all.  "Active" hydro isn't very useful on surface contacts because wave noise and reflections off of the water surface mess up the signal.  "Passive" hydro can pick up the prop and hull sounds of a surface ship, which can provide a general bearing, how fast the props are turning (and therefore a general idea of speed), and a vague idea of distance based on strength of the sound.  But none of this would be precise enough pinpoint a ship and gain a gunnery solution.  And hydro could sometimes pick up the sounds of torps in the water but certainly didn't give precise enough info to determine the torps' exact track.

 

The other big thing that relates to all types of spotting in WoWs is that ships in WoWs have "Borg" spotting -- once one ship on a team spots an enemy, all friendies immediately have this spotting info as well.  This is not remotely the way it works IRL.  Even in modern naval combat with advanced C2 tech, relaying accurate spotting info between distant ships takes a certain amount of time.  In the time periods the game covers, info often had to be relayed by coded radio telegraph, or even flag or signal lamp, so passing detailed spotting info could potentially take much longer -- minutes, sometimes dozens of minutes or more.

 

Personally, I'd love to see an early 20th century period  hardcore naval command simulator game with e.g., realistic spotting and target acquisition mechanics, but this would be a VERY different game to WoWs.  It would have a very high learning curve and a much slower pace.  I suspect such a game would have too small a potential player base to be really viable as a commercial product.

 

But whatever... WoWs is a fun game and I enjoy it for what it is; a fast-paced shoot-em-up loosely based on historical naval combat. 'Sfun.

 

You posted just before me, you are correct on all counts and I too would love to see it in game, but as you said there would be issues with play and players.

[Reymu]

DDs can stealth around, use smoke clouds to get a minute of so of invisifire, torp ambush, and bolt if things get too hot. Only fair that radar and hydro defeat the stealth regardless of cover. Maintains the high-risk that DDs should face.

 

No business complaining on the DD's part either. If you got time here to complain about being spotted, you got time to rework your playstyle and cope with radar and hydro. I ran into a hydro-using Konigsberg on my Clemson and only dodging just as he fired saved me getting sunk; I survived with 669HP out of like 4K. Why waste time complaining my attempt to stealth torp got foiled? I adapted. Radar and hydro are tools, not OP issues. Suggest you adapt instead of grumbling, it's better for WG to keep it simply "who outplayed the other first?"

[Captain_Dilbert]

Just out of curiosity; If I can run in a destroyer from C to B on Fault Line, keeping that tiny island in B between me and a Wyoming that decided to park itself on the other side, carefully keeping and eye on other potential enemies that might spot me, AND NEVER GET SPOTTED by the Wyoming because of the spotting mechanics before I finally rounded the island and fed him six torps from my Fujin; Why is it so difficult for those same mechanics to be applied to the 'spotting' mechanic of Radar and Hydro?

 

As I said; more out of curiosity that any real desire to complain. If spotting is spotting, visual, radar, or hydro and measured against the location of a target ship, why can't they all be restricted in the same manner by terrain?

 

The basic mechanic vis-a-vis terrain would seem to be the same in all cases; while some form of 'stealth value is ignored inside 'x' range in 'y' circumstance,' (generally smoke related,) being the only exception.

 

It seems that the way the code is currently written for Radar and for Hydro is very simplistic...if Radar or Hydro is active then spot all enemy ships within X.X km.  What folks here believe should happen is something similar to if Radar or Hydro is active then spot all enemy ships that are IN LINE OF SITE AND within X.X km.  Probably not the biggest code change, but a potential code change none the less.

 

So the question to WG is, was this an intentional super buff to CAs or was this a less than perfect execution of a buff and they just wanted to get it in the game ASAP?

[RoundsDownRange]

DDs can stealth around, use smoke clouds to get a minute of so of invisifire, torp ambush, and bolt if things get too hot. Only fair that radar and hydro defeat the stealth regardless of cover. Maintains the high-risk that DDs should face.

 

No business complaining on the DD's part either. If you got time here to complain about being spotted, you got time to rework your playstyle and cope with radar and hydro. I ran into a hydro-using Konigsberg on my Clemson and only dodging just as he fired saved me getting sunk; I survived with 669HP out of like 4K. Why waste time complaining my attempt to stealth torp got foiled? I adapted. Radar and hydro are tools, not OP issues. Suggest you adapt instead of grumbling, it's better for WG to keep it simply "who outplayed the other first?"

 

Warships have sometimes used a simple variation of the smoke generator, by injecting fuel oil directly into the smoke stack. An even simpler method that was used in the days of steam-propelled warships was to restrict the supply of air to the boiler. This resulted in incomplete combustion of the coal or oil, which produced a thick black smoke. Because the smoke was black, it absorbed heat from the sun and tended to rise above the water. Therefore navies turned to various chemicals, such as titanium tetrachloride, that produce a white, low-lying cloud.

There was no time limit to their use, but extended use increased fuel consumption and also made ships more venerable to fire and break down.