Roermond: Part 1

The first hour of the big Roermond fight from Monday. This is “buzzard footage” – not the static bunker watch of the last movie, but it’s still not Spielberg and its certainly not a promo movie. I wound up trimming the first hour down to 15 minutes but avid WWIIers – especially those who’ve fought in Roermond lately – especially Monday :)

Part 1 sets the scene, gives you a sense of some of the heart and scope of the battle.

WMV files require Windows Media Player 9/codecs or higher.

Medium quality version (109mb WMV movie)
Higher quality version (243mb WMV movie)
QuickTime Part 1a (116Mb)
QuickTime Part 1b (114Mb)

I couldn’t figure out how to get decent sound with QuickTime without raising the size ludicrously.

Part 2 will follow tomorrow or Thursday and will run 20-30 minutes.


Awesome, what a great movie. All it needs is a narrarator and some music, maybe run it through a B/W filter and some grain.

There is NO game like this one, and this type of footage shows it at its best. Seeing 400-500 people fighting at once is pretty amazing given that most games don’t even try.

The buzzard really needs better controls, its a little choppy for a movie camera!

Yeah, itd be nice if it would adapt its sensitivity based on zoom level, wasted some good footage trying to get the buzzard pointed at something :)

Watching noobs get wasted is a riot. When that noob ‘timezone’ comes running through the field …what does he do? He stops and stands up like a tree in the desert. You could see that death coming a mile away. Zergie dropped him like a sac of potatoes. Oh man, some things are just too funny.

I didn’t realize there are infantry corpses now. Nice touch.

KFS1, I wanted to ask, Shader 2.0 is coming to patch 1.28, right? Any chance CRS can reveal some screenshots to see how the graphics improve? That would be nice, maybe in Friday’s newsletter.

hell kfs, that is one kickass video, can’t wait for part 2!

Do you have stats of this battle? They are cool to know…

BTW, anyone else think it’s time to get rid of the sapper ability to destroy tanks? Notice, I’m not saying get rid of sappers, only their ability to kill tanks, since sappers have other uses. Watching the video you can’t help but think ‘BS’ when 1 inf takes out 2 stuarts. The game now has a wide inventory of ATGs capable of killing tanks, the sapper satchel has outlived its use as a crutch for inf. If I’m not mistaken, Rats are soon adding the ability for ATGs, trucks, etc to spawn at the depots. That will make ATGs even more effective, since they can’t be cornered in an AB. They’ll be able to position around town much faster, and so on.

In any case, CRS should make AT-rockets (Bazookas/Pzrfausts) a priority feature. 1) they’re sexy and attract players 2) they’re much more realistic than sappers 3) they would be much more effective in urban combat since inf would be able to hit tanks from above where the arm is thinnest 4) did I mention WAAY sexier and realistic :)

Yes, please share the entire log of this battle.

Please release PART 2 soon!!!!!! :D

KFS1 – For better Apple quality, maybe you could try converting the WMV directly to MP4. That’s what the IPOD uses, and I’m pretty sure it plays in Quicktime. I know they play in Itunes. For conversion of the WMVs, there’s a free program called Super@ that works very well.

And get rid of Allied bazookas until Axis had one… oh, I mean, british grenadiers :-p

If you quit sappers, tanks numbers have to be reduced also. Currently there are too many (allied) tanks.

And not, I am not biased ;)

No need to reduce tank numbers. They can just increase ATG numbers, until AT-rockets are added.

Outstanding ! I loved that battle movie so much I watched it twice ! Can’t wait for part 2. And I know it’s not a promo, but couldn’t help directing some of my friends to the site to try to temp them back into the fight !!

Would be really cool if we could get AAR causuality lists after a town fall of total losses for both sides, just to know how bloody some of these clashes truely are !

Sorry Zheriz, but it doesn’t remotely look like BS to me. 3 unguarded tanks firing from the same hedgeline without communicating/co-ordinating. The second almost got away when gripfast spotted the sapper coming to him, but he insisted on firing a few more shots first and paid the price.

Besides, the sapper is a large part of why we see less of the old-style massive AB camps.

No need for the quicktime ones. The wmv plays fine on my mac with flip4mac.

Rendering part 2 now – looks like it will take 2hrs to render and about 30-40 minutes to upload.

I know what you’re saying KFS1, but if there is something in WWIIOL that is way off on the historic mark, it’s the sapper satchel and the way our sappers operate as anti-tank units. I appreciate why it was originally added to the game – to give INF and AT capability – but I’ve always felt it’s gamey. But now we have great ATGs to handle that. CRS needs to get AT-rockets in game so we can get rid of these satchels for AT duty. AT rockets would be much effective against tanks in the AB, since the weapon can be used from a distance and from above to attack the soft tops of armor. If the objective is to keep tanks out of town, INF with bazookas will do that better than anything else.

If I may ask, why haven’t bazookas, pzrfausts, etc., been added? Is there a technical reason? We have RGs and mortars, both of which launch projectiles, it seems bazookas would be similar. In any case, they should be bumped up the feature list, I bet the entire player base would like to have these weapons ASAP. They’d sexy-up the game quite a bit and attract players.


to jump in the sapper conversation here: Sappers are the reason I no longer play the game. Kills the immersion, and is a cheesy and gamey tactic.

I keep an eye on this blog (frequently!) because I like WWIIOL, but I won’t resub until sappers ability to kill tanks is removed.

Like Zheriz said, introducing infantry AT rockets will both increase ‘realism’ and ‘sexy’ up the game, attracting old customers and new

Uploading now, but having some upload issues. Damn 671mb files ;)

Looks like it won’t be done uploading until tomorrow am :(

Awesome, can’t wait to check it out. Great battle.

Hey, peeps
I heard I got a role in the movie…But I cant view it, click the link and it opens new page with garbble text
??????.,/?????.>??????????? etc etc

any ideas ?

its right here on this page on top right click save to and down load.

OK, some rough suggestion to get decent Quicktime and small size. I think you already packed video.

The standard format for Mpeg4 and Quicktime is AAC. As it is explosions, shooting etc. sound, 96 Kbit VBR Stereo should be enough.

I didn’t get the file yet but if I compressed gameplay video, I would use H264 2 pass with automatic bitrate setting. Notice it must be 2 pass or Automatic bitrate will go nuts.

A pure MP4 (mpeg4) would be good but Apple’s pure mpeg4 encoder is a complete junk, you would need 3ivx 5.01 for a decent pure mpeg4

The solution to all future encoding chaos: Install ffmpeg and use it. 3 platforms (Windows too I think?) and one single command. Especially the x264 makes Apple h264 looking like joke.

kfs, awesome video. Will enjoy watching this many times. As mentioned this is also nice promotion material.. thinking that this is only 1 city of 200 (unsure :) it clearly is a massive multiplayer game.

“BTW, anyone else think it’s time to get rid of the sapper ability to destroy tanks?”

Heck no, i am still waiting for them to be allowed to throw the satchels :P

KFS1 I am calling the Quicktime police.. OMG man stay away from Sorenson video 3 for Quicktime :))

Use H264 2pass (important), nobody can play this game on a Mac that can’t play H264.

Also use AAC for audio, QDesign Music _is_ a music codec, designed for music back in 1994 or something ;)

(Lets hope I don’t mysteriously die in game after posting this) *g*

Jakkard #1!!!

16ID represent!

Ilgaz wrote:
KFS1 I am calling the Quicktime police.. OMG man stay away from Sorenson video 3 for Quicktime :))

Use H264 2pass

That was the first one I tried, you have to pay for it. I tried all of the audio codecs and whichever I used made the audio sound least toilety.

I did encode using 3ivx MPEG 4 V 5.01 , it is a professional mpeg4 compressor we use at TV, 2 pass. The result is ~26 mb for part 1.

How do I send it? I don’t have any mail which supports SMTP like that.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

[…] Roermond: Part 1 […]

Roermond: Part 2 « kfsone’s pittanceOctober 25, 2007 at 9:55 pm

[…] Roermond: Part 1 […]

Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: