I think the biggest factor is what the political situation is that will lead to any number of factors that lead to battles taking place and how angry you are to bet huge sums of food, armor, arms, supplies, calvary, siege engines, men, and all that goes into waging a war.

I imagine that most battles will first start as territorial disputes of expanding kingdoms and exerting your dominance over other kingdoms. In those I dont expect to see a whole lot of calvary and siege equipment as much as a couple groups are fighting and more and more people chain in and a battle emerges until it fizzles out. Mostly just melee and archer fire being exchanged.

Or quick strike raids where people on horseback strike border cities and loot as much as they can in which you either defend them off or you potentially follow them and gain some sort of backup.

Especially as sustained longer settlement fights are going to require a more sustained presence or fort to launch to due to supply and vitality restraints as well as the fact that horses or other mounts will be needed to bridge the distance quickly and efficiently

Other larger battles will be more about who wants to charge first and go into archer range. Either because siege engines are wrecking havor on your city or to prevent them from hitting the city in the first place. At which time archers will try to pick them off with long range bows followed by crossbowmen and finally the infantry if they have calvary they most likely wouldnt engage unless the otherside had calvary. And either you stop the siege engines before they breach the walls or gates or the come inside and do as much damage as they can.

I do not see huge armies meeting very often in an organized open field battle very often in which you do battle like you see in history. I think that will either be event driven by the SBE or just chance encounters or by good scouts calling out movements.

But for the most part its just how much you are willing to risk in order to gain loot or put a stop to something you dont like.

Its going to be a quick chaotic non organized cluster of mayhem with some being able to organize some quick maneuvers. With the spirit walking find your body aspect being different for everyone its just going to be an endless stream of disorganized combat beyond the first skirmish.

Calvary will most likely be used for either quick trampling waves or to get to the battle faster. And if there are pikes or other anti calvary weapons or ground spikes, fire, etc they wont be that useful as they are huge targets you can hit and kill.

Edit: Some will be willing to lose a lot to pvp as they have already played games that have this aspect. In most cases people will want to do as much quick damage as they can without dying or losing potentially what they had on them or losing duribility and spirit.

@Moonchaser some of these bullet points directly correlate with each other so i'm going to pass on re-organizing them based on importance but these are my thoughts on the points you brought up.

Average time to kill?

This is difficult since many factors come into play with the duration including but not limited to armor type differences, weapon type differences, hunger/fatigue, general stats, etc. But if we were to limit the variables as much as possible then my expectation is that the average time to kill will be about 30 seconds to 1 minute of constant fighting for a 1v1 melee combat situation. Reason for this is that Caspian's measure of time is "3-4 hits in a strategic location" which I'm assuming would be a non-armored location or in the case of fisticuffs 3-4 good hits to the face. With stamina constantly being depleted from attempted hits and actual hits I expect combat to be relatively short, but those who pace themselves properly should be able to go maybe up to a maximum of 5 minutes depending on the armor and weapon types of the user until fatigue sets in.

Impact and role of ranged vs melee combat? cavalry vs infantry? siege engines and technological advantages?

I'm lumping these 3 together for simplicity sake, but my opinion is that each one should generally trump each other via "rock, paper, scissors" style but as with all combat situations, situation dictates... Each one is supposed to cover a deficit the other creates, melee infantry is expected to be up there taking the hits from the enemy keeping their ranged companions and siege engines safe from assault. Ranged units are there to weaken enemy melee/Calvary troops so that their melee units can overpower them, Calvary troops are there to hit in unexpected spots and openings and create openings for the melee troops to advance (flanks/rear). Seige and technological advancements are additionals that enhance the melee, ranged, and Calvary troops but are generally weak against everything if caught on their own. So its hard to determine the impact of each role besides each other since again situation dictates how useful they'll be.

Impact of strategy and tactics? Terrain and biomes as well as seasons and weather? Range on vision (fog, etc. to prevent desyncs)?

I've lumped these categories together as they all play a role within Tactics and Strategy. My opinion is that tactics and strategy should be a major player in combat, however to implement that within an MMO setting would be difficult since what makes tactics and strategy strong is proper coordination which takes practice. Anyone can yell out the order to advance, but to make sure that everyone advances together is the hard part even in real life.

Armour and weapon types?

Another important subject for combat but mostly for realism sake. While it should be possible to defeat an opponent using lesser quality equipment it also depends on the properties of the armor and weapon type as well as the character/player skill involved, an extreme example would be the fight between Miyamoto Musashi and Sasaki Kojiro where Musashi beaten Kojiro using a broken wooden oar as a sword (if you believe the rumors that he actually used a wooden oar is).

Role of the commander? Officer structures for chain of commands?

A Chain of Command is necessary for a functioning organization of any sort, not just combat. People need to know who they should listen to and who they shouldn't listen to otherwise organized combat breaks down to a brawl.

OCEAN playing into NPCs behaviour to fight bravely or retreat?

There's a military rank that was created to combat this particular problem. It's called Lance Corporal. Correct me if i'm wrong but this is how I understand it, Lance Corporals was the rank just below the lowest Non-Commission Officer rank of Corporal. While in combat, Lance Corporals would be part of the second formation armed with Lances so that when the first wave of peasant conscripts retreated from battle they would be met with the lances and their allies telling them to get back into battle or die by their lance.

Sending messages and scouts on the battlefield? Importance of the fact that information in CoE is saved in actual objects you pass on (albeit invisible)?

As much as i'd love this to be an important facet of combat in CoE, any implementation of this in game would ultimately be rendered pointless by 3rd party programs like Discord or TeamSpeak... The only perceivable benefit of an in-game messages in combat situations would be for NPCs.

How do you want to feel when you are in the {melee infantry division, cavalry, archer division, on defensive structures, in the open} on the battelfield?

This ties in to my comment about the impact and role of infantry/calvalry/ranged. When dealing with mass combat, individual skill is important but good teamwork/coordination should almost always trump individual skill. So for me, as long as I feel that the division i'm a part of can make a difference in the battlefield.

How important is sound to you?

Sound is very important, visual impact is great but if its properly complemented with a good background soundtrack then the level of immersion rises immensely in my opinion, but at the same time, if there is going to be an ingame VOIP option then obviously the sound should be lowered so that you can hear people.

How much do you really need to sense around your character?

From the gameplay demo's so far I would say that's as much awareness as you'll need as a character. Since the point of view is almost realistically restricted leaving you just a cone of vision in front, I feel that would easily represent your real life peripherals.

What are your thoughts of random hits (e.g. arrows raining down)?

Its a legitimate strategy, you're trading accuracy for quantity and really when you're dealing with an advancing shield wall, you know it's unlikely that you'll actually get a hit in but moving in an actual shield wall formation is generally slow paced so in turn the rain of arrows is more to slow down the enemy while your forces reposition rather than to kill them before they get to you.

What would you like shock cavalry and colision to feel like?

Shock cavalry should be able to puncture holes in most unit formations with equipment being the deciding factor on how far a character gets pushed back possibly ranging from a maximum 8 feet of knock back to no knock back at all.

Player skill vs importance of character skill?

It might just be that my interpretation of what character skill would give you is wrong, but this is what I imagine it to be. Player skill involves knowing when to use which technique and being able to ensure a hit using the move set of a weapon or martial school. Character skill would equate to the amount of techniques your character knows, raising/lowering the chance on hit to disarm, lowering the stamina consumption of techniques and such. If done like this, I could imagine that a player with really high character skill may know a lot of techniques and can last longer in fights stamina wise, but if they cannot make contact due to a lack of their own skill then it gives a chance for their opponent to win even at a lower character skill level.

Importance of armour protection? Scissors, paper, stone system? Balancing of PvP on the live server?

I've lumped these last 3 together because I believe that the protection given by armor should be a rock paper scissor style system. It's easy to comprehend why full plate has the potential to stop arrows, but it's also easy to comprehend why a Warhammer could easily leave a massive dent in it rendering its protection diminished.

One thing I am worried about is how wars are going to work. I recall reading that dying during a battle in a war wouldn't affect you as much, as say, a band of vandals, committing a coup de gras on you and running off with your pack animal's supplies.

This is fine and all, but I do wonder how the whole war thing going to actually work. Do wars last weeks or even months? How does progression come about in a war? What kinda marker will there be to indicate that a town has been taken over? If a man logged off in a town, subsequently taken over, what would become of his character, knee-deep in enemy territory?

I'd like to go over all of your bullet points, so prepare for quite the lengthy answer.

Average time to kill?

I think time to kill should be something difficult to pin down like that. No matter how heavily armored you are, if someone grapples you and rams a dagger in your visor, or your armpit you are pretty much dead, and If your opponent is a lot better than you, or surprised you this could mean it's over after one hit and a few seconds. I guess Caspians three to four hits are meant to apply to unarmored combat, so I'd expect that short of getting your neck broken by a lucky hit with a pollaxe or sth. similar duels in armor could take many, many hits before someone can't keep fighting. I see it more as a death from a thousand cuts (bruises) in that case.

Impact and role of ranged vs melee combat?

This should once again differ greatly depending on how much armor is being worn. The more armor, the less ranged combat, or atleast archery, matters. At point blank range, a warbow/crossbow shot to the visor could still be very dangerous.

The role of ranged combat would be more one of killing the lightly armored, while melee usually does the heavy lifting.

Impact and role of cavalry vs infantry?

Cavalry and infantry are very different in what they can achieve, and what their tasks are. Depending on the terrain cavalry can be very important, but there are situations where infantry is essential.

Cavalry has a great advantage in its mobility, which allows you to maneuver it over the battlefield to strike where it is needed most, and provide support to your infantry. Infantry on the other hand is better suited to protecting sites, and warmachines, or taking positions.

Impact and role of siege engines and technological advantages?

I'd love for warmachines to be an important part of staged battles, while they ofcourse can hardly be used in most skirmishes. They should be key targets for the opponent, because warmachines can be devastating for infantry, which, most of the time, is the main part of an armed force.

Technological advantages shouldn't matter too much, in terms of differences in materials of the same group (bronze to iron to steel) etc. but having a whole technology, the other side doesn't, like metal armor compared to bones and hide should be a challenge to overcome. Not having cavalry in a battle against a lot of cavalry should also be a difficult task (depending on the terrain ofcourse).

Impact of strategy and tactics?

I think organizing your army should have quite an impact. Imagine an RTS where your units had randomized stats ... how would you be able to make any kind of tactical decisions? So organizing your army in a sensible way just gives you an advantage in your ability to make plans and educated guesses, on how well a certain flank will hold etc. Choosing the site of the engagement, aswell as the logistical side should also be important IMO.

Terrain and biomes as well as seasons and weather?

Very important. Though I disagree with some details, that have been hinted at so far. For example armor in hot climates is uncomfortable, but with enough water you shouldn't be hugely impacted. It is a challenge to logistics, that could become a problem for your troops IMO. The terrain decides on the effectiveness of certain troops aswell ... on a plain it is much easier to run around in armor or on a horse, than in some boreal forest on a mountain side.

Armour and weapon types?

I think this should, after your skill and your stats be the most important thing. The way I understood "equipment being less important" is, that the differences between one spear and another aren't going to be anything that decides a combat in most cases, but the differences between someone with a knife, and someone with a sword should be very noticeable. I'd even go so far, to say, that I'd like that in some edge cases even just a competent fighter has to do something stupid to lose the fight vs. a much more skilled opponent.

I am also totally not biased when I say, that I think greatswords are ... pretty great.

Range on vision (fog, etc. to prevent desyncs)?

I really like the idea, that in the thick of battle you can't really get a good idea of what's going on on the battlefield as a whole.

Role of the commander?

To develop a strategy to win the battle.

Officer structures for chain of commands?

I think they are necessary.

OCEAN playing into NPCs behaviour to fight bravely or retreat?

Sounds fine to me.

Sending messages and scouts on the battlefield?

I don't think this will be a thing due to VoIP

Importance of the fact that information in CoE is saved in actual objects you pass on (albeit invisible)?

I don't think this will have much impact on battles, though I really like the concept.

How do you want to feel when you are in the {melee infantry division, cavalry, archer division, on defensive structures, in the open} on the battelfield?

This is a pretty huge question, that was actually what I was expecting to be the sole question when I first red the title of the thread ... would make the post too long, sorry.

How important is sound to you?

Not that important.

How much do you really need to sense around your character?

I think seeing like one or two ranks far should be enough.

What are your thoughts of random hits (e.g. arrows raining down)?

It sucks to be on the receiving end of a random hit, and I doubt the shooter will have a special sense of enjoyment. But yeah, should still be a thing.

What would you like shock cavalry and colision to feel like?

I guess being shock cavalry isn't much different from what you'll be seeing in the jousting scenario. Being on the receiving end should be scary though.

Player skill vs importance of character skill?

Player skill for reaction, devising a strategy, and knowing your opponents moveset or something similar. Character skill to provide the necessary endurance, damage, and complex moveset options.

Importance of armour protection?

Yeah I really, really, really like armor, if that hadn't been apparent by now.

Scissors, paper, stone system?

I don't really see rock paper scissors making for a compelling combat experience, but if you'd have to give each of them something they are good at, and something they suck at, it should be something like cuts are exceptionally deadly for unarmored opponents, but any kind of metal armor is nearly impervious to them, blunt force retains most of its lethality compared to the other two, but if you are not hitting the head/neck, even an unarmored opponent will survive a bunch of hits from a pollaxes hammerhead, and lastly thrusting is the middle ground, a good stab can kill an unarmored opponent, while still being usable against anything but hardened steel plates.

Balancing of PvP on the live server?

I don't think we can already talk about balance at this point, but as long as the depictions are close to reality, I'd rather see balancing over economic factors or the development of new combat styles better suited to dealing with problematic parts of combat, than straight up nerfing stuff.

Before I begin responding, I'd like to point to Chivalry and M&B: Warband as two games that are the gold standard when it comes to intense combat. While it shouldn't be a complete carbon copy, both of these games are widely heralded as being medieval combat games that "get it". I think the devs would do well to study these games and incorporate some of the mechanics into CoE.

• Average time to kill? This should depend entirely on the skill of the combatants. Some fights should end with a single swing of a weapon. Other fights should last much longer, if both fighters are at the peak of their craft. There should definitely be a way for damage to be completely mitigated (shields, blocking), so that skill actually matters.

• Impact and role of ranged vs melee combat? Ranged should generally have an advantage over melee at, get this, ranged distances. Once the melee fighter has closed the gap, though, the tables should turn.

• Impact and role of cavalry vs infantry? Generally cavalry should benefit from a mixture of surprise and shock. If achieved, the cav should ride right over infantry. If the infantry are ready, however, the opposite should be true.

• Impact and role of siege engines and technological advantages? Siege engines should be useful for their intended role (not much more to say about that). Technological advances should provide an overall advantage to one side. However unless the technology is completely more advanced, the advantage shouldn't be insurmountable.

• Impact of strategy and tactics? Strategy should be the concern of Kings and Dukes. Tactics should be the concern of Barons.

• Terrain and biomes as well as seasons and weather? I think biomes should be domineering. A tribe invading a biome they are not used to should find their advance to be much more difficult. Brudvir attacks into jungles should be blunted by jungle poisons. Dras attacks into plains should be slowed by the sun. Weather is simply a part of this.

• Armour and weapon types? Armour should keep you alive longer. However it shouldn't remove player skill from the equation. A well-armored warrior can still die, and quickly (if they're not doing what they're supposed to). Weapons should be a trade-off between speed, strength, reach, and traits. Check out M&B: Warband for a great system of how to handle this.

• Range on vision (fog, etc. to prevent desyncs)? This should fall under the category of the roles of biome and weather. Rain should slow Brudvir marches. Sunshine should tire Dras. So on and so on.

• Role of the commander? The Commander's job is to coordinate assaults and movements in a manner that most effectively utilizes the forces at hand. It would be neat to see things like buffs when nearby, and perhaps further systems to make sure the skill of Commanders MATTERS.

• Officer structures for chain of commands? The typical pyramid structure has worked for centuries. One person is at the top (a King, presumably). 3-12 people on the next rung (Dukes). 3-12 people on the next rung down (Barons). So on and so on.

• OCEAN playing into NPCs behaviour to fight bravely or retreat? You should be able to give orders to NPCs that will be followed to the best of their ability. For example, "Engage until at 50% strength or below" or "Fight to the death".

• Sending messages and scouts on the battlefield? This is one of those aspects where whatever the game comes up with, it will likely be superseded by outside technology. Discord and TS2 are just too useful as communcation tools.

• Importance of the fact that information in CoE is saved in actual objects you pass on (albeit invisible)? I think it would be absolutely mind-blowing if you could actually write books in game and have them be physical objects that can be passed around. The immersion would be off the charts.

• How do you want to feel when you are in the {melee infantry division, cavalry, archer division, on defensive structures, in the open} on the battelfield? Depends on the situation. Could range anything from "in charge of the situation!" to "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!"

• How important is sound to you? Sound is one of those things that you only notice if it's done poorly. Otherwise it should seam perfectly to provide ambience and immersion.

• How much do you really need to sense around your character? I think this is more based on player skill than anything the devs can do.

• What are your thoughts of random hits (e.g. arrows raining down)? Battles are chaos. This should be reflected in combat. Even the best warriors can succumb to bad luck. I'll be unhappy if the situation is one where a min/maxed player can become practically invincible. Making it so that anything can happen makes the world a living one.

• What would you like shock cavalry and colision to feel like? Like... a collision? ;)

• Player skill vs importance of character skill? Player skill should ALWAYS trump character skill. Games where a min/maxed character always wins are lazy and boring.

• Importance of armour protection? It should absolutely be important. It falls under the category of preparedness. However god-tier armor shouldn't be an automatic win. There should be many other elements at play.

• Scissors, paper, stone system? Again, refer to M&B: Warband for a system that works well. Cavalry generally beats archers, archers beat infantry, and infantry beats cavalry. Of course, it's not set in stone and is subject to player skill (as it should be), but it's at least a guideline.

• Balancing of PvP on the live server? Should be done?

Thanks for those questions, was an interesting list. :)