The exact system for designating a portion of the map an official battlefield has not been revealed, but they are not instances. There are no instances anywhere.

The duration of a war would be until one side falls, or surrenders, or a peace treaty is signed.

CBs can arise from a variety of actions that harm you or your people. A complete list is not available yet.

Any fighting that does not happen on an official battlefield would be subject to the regular laws of the territory you were fighting in. And you wouldn't automatically know that the person in front of you was from your opposition kingdom. There are no floating names, or color coded names to tell you who is good or bad or whatever. You'll have to observe and judge for yourself whether you're about to kill an opponent, or an ally, or some innocent bystander.

1) Staged battle refers to going to an agreed battlefield at a certain time Braveheart style. Caspian briefly refers to this in last tribe Q&A.

2) I don't know whether open PvP will change your borders. From what I understand land can only be bought, leased or adversely possessed. (Occupy abandoned land for 28 days). You can also challenge someone for their title via Casus Belli

3) There is a list for Casus Belli, but I don't imagine there is one for war yet. Casus Belli merely refers to making a semi-legitimate claim to a title. You can look at the kingdom and land management design journal for a full explanation

4) I don't know the answer to this. Though I imagine you can war for as long as you want. Casus Belli usually requires you hold something for 28 days. Though there are other options.

5) Idk this either. Though I imagine it will be allowed based on the terms of war.

Some good infos here, thank you.

The 'staged battle' appears to be less of a game mechanic with set goals but rather a spontaneous or RP led initiative, with downsides to the individual Waerd based on other mechanics such as the legal system. I had assumed the restrictions on the Waerd would have been system-side, ie. being unable to queue for battlegrounds and so forth. I'm happy that is not the case and believe this is a very nice and immersive feature.

The lack of identifiers sounds wonderful. I can envisage guilds/families or whatever requiring colours or sigils when on the field. Again, another immersive feature.

Adverse possession has been mentioned and it appears to be a means of acquiring private land and title. Is it possible for an aristocrat or noble to switch allegiance from one feudal superior to another? If so, a casus belli which forcibly replaces a lord with one from an enemy territory could result in territory switching hands, or something... what do I know?

Some interesting interpretations though.

Above is an example of a staged battle

It's basically where groups of troops line up ready to fight each other. It's referred to as a staged battle because people don't just randomly meet up on a battlefield and suddenly gather in lines of infantry and various other troops, they all marched there and prepare to fight

The waerd are more like skirmishers who'll fight small battles. They are more like gorilla warfare and raid settlements that are unprepared. You won't find them lined up a castle waiting to siege it, as soon as they get there, they are running in to fight.

The 'staged battle' appears to be less of a game mechanic with set goals but rather a spontaneous or RP led initiative, with downsides to the individual Waerd based on other mechanics such as the legal system. This is a very nice and immersive feature.

Not quite, basically if two kingdoms are at war, a staged battle is likely to happen whenever two opposing armies bump into each other. be it when a castle is sieged or one army is intercepted by the other.

The waerd specifically are more likely to have hit and run style tactics, as they are mainly assassin types, or they'll act as scouts for an army of a different tribe.

The lack of identifiers sounds wonderful. I can envisage guilds/families or whatever requiring colours or sigils when on the field. Again, another immersive feature.

You'll have identifiers for family members and people you know well. You'll ALWAYS be able to recognise family members, even if they are disguised, but if it's just someone you know you'll have to know them very way to get name plate style mechanics. Think of it like this.... IRL if you see someone you know, you instantly know them and can pick them out of a crowd. if you see someone who looks similar you'll not know them at all, but they will still look like someone you know.... a game naturally has many people who look similar to each other, so that will be how you can recognise people you know.

Adverse possession has been mentioned and it appears to be a means of acquiring private land and title. Is it possible for an aristocrat or noble to switch allegiance from one feudal superior to another? If so, a casus belli which forcibly replaces a lord with one from an enemy territory could result in territory switching hands, or something... what do I know?

All lands belong to the king. You can switch your allegiance from one king to another, but you can't take your land and title with you. You can try, but that would mean the other king would have to declare war on the other, but for a small piece of random land, thats not too likely. If you changed allegiance you would still have the renown worthy of your title, so you could become that title in the new kingdom, but you'd have to have a new settlement to go to and leave your old one behind.

Posted By Nagash at 3:48 PM - Fri Jul 21 2017

Not quite, basically if two kingdoms are at war, a staged battle is likely to happen whenever two opposing armies bump into each other. be it when a castle is sieged or one army is intercepted by the other.

This is very much what I meant to say above. As with EvE Online, whilst 'sieges' took the form of tower or station reinforcement timers, the 'staged battles' took place nearby on gates or in the vicinity of the structures. At times those battles were spontaneous or at least one side wouldn't expect it to occur. It's good to know there will be something similar in CoE.

All lands belong to the king. You can switch your allegiance from one king to another, but you can't take your land and title with you. You can try, but that would mean the other king would have to declare war on the other, but for a small piece of random land, thats not too likely. If you changed allegiance you would still have the renown worthy of your title, so you could become that title in the new kingdom, but you'd have to have a new settlement to go to and leave your old one behind.

If EvE Online is anything to go by then I imagine Kingdoms (analogous to Coalitions or Alliances) will go to war for County or Duchy sized territorial gains, perhaps even prominent cities, especially if there is money and resources readily available, for some strategic advantage (ie. staging military resources inside a neighbouring Kingdom), and above all for simple bragging rights. The context of my original post was from the top down (Kings/Dukes desiring neighbouring land) as opposed to your bottom up approach (aristo/noble wishing to realign themselves) but either way its nice to better understand the system mechanics.

So I recently watched a video of a game called Mount & Blade Bannerlord and a feature called Commander mode or whatever was being highlighted. This game mode allows a player to control a squad of NPCs by giving them basic orders such as formation, fire at will, movement commands and so forth.

-EDIT- This link has some good infos, courtesy of MoonChaser. coeqa.diegobao.info/question/577655193310296adc58eaf6

CoE came to mind as I recalled that Duchies are responsible for raising armies for their Kingdoms. Duchies establish fortresses and these are maintained by the Barons. I also recall mention of NPCs that can be deployed in combat roles such as guards. Am I correct in my assumption that Barons/Dukes can muster the NPCs from their settlements and somehow command them, perhaps similarly to the system mentioned above in M&B? A noble who controls a Castle level fortress might therefore have access to over 100 NPCs who could fight in their contingent?

Returning to the topic of the thread, could this be the definition of a staged battle?

Imagine this - the sovereign of Kingdom A musters their army for a siege of a castle belonging to Kingdom B. They presumably pinpoint somewhere on the map for their army to assemble beforehand, whether in game or on a 3rd party programme. The nobility and aristocracy tell their clan mates to assemble but also gather their NPCs. On account of them being paid by the Duchy I would expect most NPCs to have comparable gear to an average PC but it could be the job of the baron to ensure this. So an hour or 2 passes and the nobles begin their journey to the mustering ground. The intended target knows of the plans and begins to muster their own forces. The army of Kingdom A eventually assemble and leave their camp with materials and siege equipment. The army of Kingdom B aasembles in the castle that is to be sieged.

If everything above is possible, might we not see battles containing not only dozens of PCs but also clumps of NPCs controlled by their nobles? I fear that overly large armies would play havoc with the client and people's framerate but if what I have described is possible and if the staged battle mechanic is uninstanced as has been mentioned previously then it should be possible to have battles of multiple hundreds if not thousands of characters?

Also consider the impact such a battle would have on the NPC population and economy of a Kingdom. The defeated Kingdom in the above scenario could lose everything in a few hours if the NPC component of their army was wiped out. I probably shouldn't allow my imagination to wonder so much but this would make for an epic PvP/RvR experience.

A staged battle, as mentioned above, is both sides agree to meet on the "battlefield" to settle their differences. It is not an invasion in itself, it is not a land grab in itself, its just a way to settle problems that arise.

As with much of the information I forget the sources from time to time so forgive me. This topic has been discussed before and the Waerd are indeed special. However I believe it is not a physical mechanic preventing them for fighting on the battle field (such as they can only stand there and get slaughtered) but more of a moral one. I believe you can participate if you don't get caught however if you are caught participating on the battlefield you will be disowned by the rest of the tribe (please correct me if I am wrong on this). Also this doesn't mean you can't help out behind the lines as a medic or as part of the supply chain it is just morally wrong to participate in organized combat.

Posted By Agryffin at 04:39 AM - Tue Sep 26 2017

So I recently watched a video of a game called Mount & Blade Bannerlord and a feature called Commander mode or whatever was being highlighted. This game mode allows a player to control a squad of NPCs by giving them basic orders such as formation, fire at will, movement commands and so forth.

CoE came to mind as I recalled that Duchies are responsible for raising armies for their Kingdoms. Duchies establish fortresses and these are maintained by the Barons. I also recall mention of NPCs that can be deployed in combat roles such as guards. Am I correct in my assumption that Barons/Dukes can muster the NPCs from their settlements and somehow command them, perhaps similarly to the system mentioned above in M&B? A noble who controls a Castle level fortress might therefore have access to over 100 NPCs who could fight in their contingent?

Returning to the topic of the thread, could this be the definition of a staged battle?

Imagine this - the sovereign of Kingdom A musters their army for a siege of a castle belonging to Kingdom B. They presumably pinpoint somewhere on the map for their army to assemble beforehand, whether in game or on a 3rd party programme. The nobility and aristocracy tell their clan mates to assemble but also gather their NPCs. On account of them being paid by the Duchy I would expect most NPCs to have comparable gear to an average PC but it could be the job of the baron to ensure this. So an hour or 2 passes and the nobles begin their journey to the mustering ground. The intended target knows of the plans and begins to muster their own forces. The army of Kingdom A eventually assemble and leave their camp with materials and siege equipment. The army of Kingdom B aasembles in the castle that is to be sieged.

If everything above is possible, might we not see battles containing not only dozens of PCs but also clumps of NPCs controlled by their nobles? I fear that overly large armies would play havoc with the client and people's framerate but if what I have described is possible and if the staged battle mechanic is uninstanced as has been mentioned previously then it should be possible to have battles of multiple hundreds if not thousands of characters?

Also consider the impact such a battle would have on the NPC population and economy of a Kingdom. The defeated Kingdom in the above scenario could lose everything in a few hours if the NPC component of their army was wiped out. I probably shouldn't allow my imagination to wonder so much but this would make for an epic PvP/RvR experience.

Something to keep in mind is NPCs are supposed to be indistinguishable from PCs. Meaning that unlike in other games, the PC isn't someone special who has all of this legendary gear and an indomitable will, but a normal every day individual living their life, just like the NPCs. On top of this, NPCs have their own interests and beliefs, just like PCs, so they may decide to ignore a noble's orders and commands.

As far as I know, the command system for taking control of armies is similar to M&B in some aspects but not all of them. In M&B, you give and order and the troops follow the order completely without hesitation. But In CoE, you give an order, and each individual (PC and NPC) asks themselves whether or not they want to follow the order and just how much of the order they want to follow, and then take an action that follows their decision.

For example, the general sends out a letter to a battalion which states that they must go to an enemy village, take it, and build fortifications to make it into a forward outpost. The battalion leader receives the letter, but decides to ransack the village and march onto another village entirely and then setup fortifications. Meanwhile word gets around in the battalion that the leader is disobeying the general's orders. So when they ransack the first village and prepare to move on, a quarter of the battalion decides to stay and follow the original orders, while yet another part of the battalion just quits and goes home. Leading to infighting or just a split of the battalion.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Once you start looking at NPCs as being the exact same as PCs, the whole game changes. Especially when it comes to war.

Posted By Sullen at 3:48 PM - Tue Sep 26 2017

I believe you can participate if you don't get caught however if you are caught participating on the battlefield you will be disowned by the rest of the tribe (please correct me if I am wrong on this).

It appears difficult at times to know whether we should take each sentence of the tribal write-ups as determining possible game mechanics or see them as mere embellishment for the purpose of lore or role play. For the game to impose certain buffs/debuffs or whatever to a Waerd for participating in a staged battle it first needs to know what parameters constitute a staged battle. All commentators have so far suggested that staged battles are non-instanced events that occur in the open world. Some have suggested they are pre-arranged between combatants, others that they are dynamic or spontaneous events. A non instanced pre-arranged staged battle may take the form of a 'duel', where a 'raid leader' challenges another raid leader to combat thereby initiating the game systems associated with 'staged battles' for all involved. But if no such system exists then how can the game distinguish between a staged battle or a skirmish behind the lines?

A DJ devoted to the subject of battlegrounds and PvP in general would be excellent, especially considering much of the replay factor of the MMO will revolve around the political and therefore PvP interactions of the different kingdoms.

Posted By Orikoren at 12:11 AM - Wed Sep 27 2017

For example, the general sends out a letter to a battalion which states that they must go to an enemy village, take it, and build fortifications to make it into a forward outpost. The battalion leader receives the letter, but decides to ransack the village and march onto another village entirely and then setup fortifications. Meanwhile word gets around in the battalion that the leader is disobeying the general's orders. So when they ransack the first village and prepare to move on, a quarter of the battalion decides to stay and follow the original orders, while yet another part of the battalion just quits and goes home. Leading to infighting or just a split of the battalion.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Once you start looking at NPCs as being the exact same as PCs, the whole game changes. Especially when it comes to war.

I am going to err on the side of caution and suggest that NPCs will not have this degree of agency. I would wonder how such a list of commands could be conveyed to an NPC and also how 'word gets around' between NPCs. Assuming of course the characters in the above quote are NPCs. One cannot see NPCs and PCs as being the exact same thing; the latter has agency which the former will never attain. Its nevertheless cool that both will have game mechanics and features in common.

Posted By Agryffin at 5:47 PM - Tue Sep 26 2017

Posted By Orikoren at 12:11 AM - Wed Sep 27 2017

For example, the general sends out a letter to a battalion which states that they must go to an enemy village, take it, and build fortifications to make it into a forward outpost. The battalion leader receives the letter, but decides to ransack the village and march onto another village entirely and then setup fortifications. Meanwhile word gets around in the battalion that the leader is disobeying the general's orders. So when they ransack the first village and prepare to move on, a quarter of the battalion decides to stay and follow the original orders, while yet another part of the battalion just quits and goes home. Leading to infighting or just a split of the battalion.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Once you start looking at NPCs as being the exact same as PCs, the whole game changes. Especially when it comes to war.

I am going to err on the side of caution and suggest that NPCs will not have this degree of agency. I would wonder how such a list of commands could be conveyed to an NPC and also how 'word gets around' between NPCs. Assuming of course the characters in the above quote are NPCs. One cannot see NPCs and PCs as being the exact same thing; the latter has agency which the former will never attain. Its nevertheless cool that both will have game mechanics and features in common.

Caspian's expressed goal for the NPC AI was to achieve this and more. He is wanting to create AI complex enough for the NPCs to think for themselves and attempt to achieve their own goals and dreams, with them having enough agency to even dethrone kings or create their own kingdoms through various methods.

The current plan is for it to be difficult to discern an NPC from a PC. SBS even plans on going so far as to make everything a PC can do, something that an NPC can do too.

Whether they actually achieve this or not is still up in the air of course.

another thing to understand is there is a little thing call spartal OS from a company called Improbable.

this its meant to help with the processing power for both AI and physical objects. it will also auto scale up at need thus it is a very exciting technology. there are not many games that use this tech yet and COE is one of the bigist name games to show case its features.

this is by no means a sliver bullet but with it we should beable to pull off alot of things with NPC and open world battles that most other MMO's cant currently do.

that being said till we can do the stress tests in the Emud to test its limits and game mechanics it will be hard to say for sure how good this will end up being.

to be clear regarding the weard if you step onto a Active battle feild (army sized units engaged in combat) and are seen then this could get back to your home community... and considering weard are all about community they would shun you... may go so far as to arrest you for treason against the people.

but this is where it gets murky... if defending a town from attack classed as a battle feild? are weard able to defend towns and cities?

all we hear is that weard should resolve the battle before they get that close...

now one thing to note about the weard that most people overlook is that every member of a weards town gets skill boosting from any one else in the town when they are close to one another... which means if you have a gm combat weard and he gose out with 40 novice warriors from his same town as long as they stay close they are all now GM warriors...

this is scary when you think about this... a well setup weard town would have different chrs as gms for diffrent skills and thus all will gain those skills within the buff zone. so they could in effect have all skills GM level....

thus why they have negatives like shadow war and communal properties/items to equal it all out.

another little thing that most forget is that comunity also have a kinda telpathic link so they can always tell when another from there town is near and can always talk to each other over large distances...

this is kinda a good balance to protect against random members of the community going rogue as they could be hunted relentlessly with no hope of escape...

hope this helped you broaden your view on the weard some more... they are a very complicated people and if used right could be overpowering...

casp did mention they may beable to change the shadow war by royal decree but it may take some time for the NPC to accept this change.

oh and 1 last thing

Posted By Agryffin at 10:47 AM - Wed Sep 27 2017

I would wonder how such a list of commands could be conveyed to an NPC and also how 'word gets around' between NPCs. Assuming of course the characters in the above quote are NPCs.

not sure if you read about it but there is a thing call the gossip system and well NPC live for gossip... so any action you do could be seen and passed on if they think it is a worthy piece of gossip.

there is a method for players to attempt to make false gossip ie i could claim you as a weard had stepped onto a battle field...

this if i am believed could be very bad outcome for you hehehe.

"Controlling" NPCs is going to come down to how much and how often you train with them. And besides, if an NPC or PC violates their contract then they are free to be punished, and for soldiers that blatantly disobey orders they can expect to be crucified capital T style lol...or thrown in prison :D...forever....