AdvocateJack wrote:I'd also not it would probably be no problem just upping the size of the units and not changing the rest of the rules if you wanted a larger battle. Thus instead of a unit of 100 a unit might be 200, 250, or even higher.
Absolutely, and you can have any number of units under your command. I think they're basing it (the unit size) off of fairly average sizes.
That's probably my first choice, but by no means the only - it will depend on my players. Of course, large-scale battles will be fairly rare IMO. Not only is it a large problem to field thousands of men, but it's unlikely a PC house will be in charge of it - they're much more likely to be a tiny cog in a big army. Even if it does crop up (campaign finales), there's not going to be tons of instances where it's practical to have such large engagements, it's going to be more likely that it's going to be a series of smaller engagements using the sizes in the book, although 5000 calvary charging 20000 infantry in an open-field does happen (I'm more a fan of a Gettysburg-style campaign, ie Peach Orchard, Little Round Top, etc type places). I'd leave it up to your group how to play it out. Most groups, I'd think, won't have trouble with smaller engagements which help decide overall engagements that may be huge (the narrator just telling them how the larger battle plays out, as long as it's reasonable), while the truly die-hard, will want to play out each unit over the course of months. That has some appeal, because it should be a truly epic and memorial engagement - deciding large swathes of your game world!