"Talislanta" 2ed has a nifty system based on the same chart as the rest of the game.
It's about 8 pages of stuff, over half is various charts and tables detailing some of the troops found in the setting etc.

If I remember correctly "Bushido" has a nice level of complexity in this regard...

Regardless of the implementation, large scale battles can add a nice epic sweep and let players engage the setting in a new way.

The Black Company d20 source book by Green Ronin games has some nifty mass combat rules are 3 different levels of engagement (squad, company, army).

This is totally one of those personal taste things.

You can compare it to a book. In a book if the focus is on the heroes then the 'battle' is fairly abstracted. Like the seige of Minas Tirith. Or you might want a bit more detail so like Helm's Deep. or you might want to make the Battle the actual game for a bit like Druss the Legend.

So a good Mass combat system will have the ability to dial the detail up or down. Run the battle as a 5 -15 minute high level summary with the PCs contributing some bonuses to a few die rolls. Run the Battle as a more detailled tactical combat lasting an hour or so with the PCs having more tactical choices and being able to trace their actions more clearly. Or run the Battle as a session or a series of sessions where the PCs are directly involved in the minutia.

I have done all of these. We once played a 'campaign' where each Player ran an empire with troops etc and the campaign was about the battles with break out sessions where PCs did things to influence the next battle. So if the scheduled conflict was the orcs attacking the Human town of Chard then the day before we woudl play a one shot where 4 orcs tried to infiltrate the town and get details on defences and assassinate the Human general. The Human player woudl DM the session with the other players each playing orcs some of whom were named orc heroes and all of whom could become such.
the games were different as there was a bit more Players versus DM to it but even then we were grown up enough to handle it
We ran it all with 2e D&D and the Battle system. It really worked well and we had some great games the only draw backs were that the one shot sessions were a little adverserial as I mentioned and that wargames in general take ages and ages.... so eventually the desire to run another battle dried up. I would love to try it again but using a computer based wargame engine that you could tailor enough to allow you to make the small scale changes that would result from the rpg sessions.

Quote from: jibbajibba...wargames in general take ages and ages...

I think it more accurate to say that in general they take about as much time as RPGs!

So, the subjective sense of "ages and ages" might just as well apply to a wargamer who found four hours or so being devoted to a close-tactical/ role-playing focus.

Games with the popular De Bellis Antiquitatis miniatures rules tend to take less than an hour to set up and play. Even battles involving multiples of the basic armies are pretty quick. One can run a tournament or mini-campaign in an afternoon, and there are adaptations to various periods right up to World War 2 and beyond -- including Hordes of the Things for sword & sorcery.

The old Yaquinto board game Battle (sort of Chess-like in its determinism) was similarly low in its demands.

I should clarify that what I do with mass combat also depends on how significant the role of the PCs in the mass combat is.  If they are the commanding officers on the field, then that makes it more important to detail the events and give the players a means to influence results.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;445922I should clarify that what I do with mass combat also depends on how significant the role of the PCs in the mass combat is.  If they are the commanding officers on the field, then that makes it more important to detail the events and give the players a means to influence results.

RPGPundit

this...