This isnt new, or my first post. But this really needs to bubble up to the top and really tell HLL devs how upsetting this is.
If you don't squad lead, you may not care. But
Every Match starts with me muting first, the officers with volume too high, talking about bs in command chat.
I can;t hear my team this whole time. I have to choose between talking to commanders or talking to my team. This is bad by design.
I want to hear the ass holes who talk too much in command, theyre are in every game. the way this is solved via Squad, is by providing balance, and independent volume nobs. Not for players, but channels. I can turn down command/squad lead volume VS my squad. My squad is FIRST, but I NEED to hear every other squad lead. Otherwise the whole team is disorganized.
This is such a great game. Thank god I can finally get above 100fps in action, I'm back to playng HLL. This issue though, always bugs me.
edit: Sorry for all of the caps in my post and replies. Heated.
I was just thinking about HQ's and how important they were and how they're missing from HOI4. I think they were so important to the battles in the war they should be added. The point of HQ's from my amateur understanding is to communicate and coordinate. That's why HQ's were sometimes targeted for attack by air raids for example. To disrupt the enemy's communication and command and control.
So I was just thinking that Army HQ's could function like Intel networks function. When you have an Army you select a Province where you want it located. Once it is placed it begins to develop a communication network spreading out from the HQ to your Divisions. Your Divisions could outrun their communication lines. And if encircled the communication lines to HQ would be cut off. These communication lines could also be targeted by enemy aircraft and disrupted.
Having communication with HQ would provide various bonuses to stats or debuffs if communication is cut off. It would have its own map mode. You could even have Army Group HQ's which connected to Army HQ's.
Thoughts?
P.S. Also, Army HQ would be a good place to put special abilities. Like Unity of Command does. Although I firmly believe special abilities should require actual equipment to be built. Maybe it would be more accurate to say the Army HQ is where you could launch special operations with your Divisions.
For example, how does Electronic Warfare (EW) (e.g. jamming, spoofing, etc.) and space operations (e.g. satellites) degrade or disrupt C3i information collection, processing, transmission, and distribution?
How does it affect an adversary's OODA Loop, besides lengthening it?
Additionally, can the advance of military forces into an adversary's rear area disrupt their C3i?
Hello, I am trying to translate a piece of R-script, that sends system commands from R to a COM port on my computer, into a windows batch script. The base code, previously posted here, works perfectly in R but not in the command prompt.
In summary, you use the system function in R to set up a COM port and then pass a string command to initialize the instrument, as shown below:
# set up the serial port
system("mode COM1 baud=4800 parity=o data=7 stop=1", intern=T)
# initialize the pump
zzz <- system("cmd.exe", input="echo \x05 > COM1", intern=TRUE)
If I simply paste the bolded part of the first command in the windows cmd, it sets up the COM port, as expected. However the second bolded part to initialize the instrument does not work when pasted into the cmd, though it works when the entire line is run in R.
Does anyone have experience with what R is doing to the input differently from windows cmd?
If I create a simple batch script to run the bolded portion of code, I get the following printed output in the command prompt, even though there is no '1>' in the execution code:
echo \05 1>COM1
Thanks for your help!
Curious what sort of real world examples, as well as how various common RATs actually communicate outside of a lab environment.
C3 is the backbone of any effective military structure. Standardization of that C3 is critical. Which is why, any modern military force can integrate with one and other effectively. After having played with many different types of players, from casual stoners baked out of their minds in front of the TV, to competitive gamers immersed in the situation at hand. After having many different people join our outfit, I've noticed many different terms for the same thing, (which can cause confusion on the comms, especially when passed down by a squad leader. Mission tasks are relayed in one language, but interpreted in another, resulting in a different effect on the ground.)
When tasking callsigns, a mission is articulated in a specific way, for example: "ALPHA SQUAD will SECURE SUNGREY OUTPOST, in order to ISOLATE SUNGREY AMP STATION, in preparation for further offensives." While missions may not always be fragged in such a direct manner, at least having a common understanding of Mission Tasks allows all members to speak the same language, and from a command-side, understanding Mission Tasks and their results on enemy forces, will result in a deeper concious/unconcious understanding of Mission Analysis, and the requirements to win an alert.
If you're in command of a large outfit, or a sub-unit of an outfit, I strongly recommend glossing over the following links. As well, once the map-drawing becomes available, simply using these standardized mission-task symbols, large outfits can easily disseminate tasks to sub-units for all to see.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-90/appb.htm
