Bottom Line Up Front: I think TOR 2e would benefit from a simple way to simulate larger battles. Has anyone found / home-brewed a set of rules for this?
Background: I have run a sporadic campaign of TOR 2e for my wife and a couple of friends since March, and my wife and I have recently also started a cooperative Strider Mode campaign. I am loving the system, so far. The more I get into it, the more I appreciate how the mechanics support a really authentic Middle Earth experience.
That being said, one thing is missing for me. Battles. Some of the most climactic moments of LOTR and the Hobbit happen during pitched battles. I mean, how can you meaningfully fight the Enemy without a battle (unless you happen to the ring-bearer).
Issue: In our Strider Mode campaign, my wife and I have discovered that orcs are massing in Eriador for some obviously bad reason. However, I can foresee our future adventuring will start to break down in the face of this, as there is a limited amount that a pair of adventurers can do to counter this threat. We can, of course, inform Elrond and the Rangers and the folk of Bree about the danger (and that is going to be the crux of our next several sessions), and we can scout orc camps, pick off leaders, discover relevant magical items and lore, etc. But unless we can somehow bring it all together and defeat a large mass of the orcs, we will never really be able to engage the threat in a satisfying way that mitigates it meaningfully, such that Eriador is not under imminent threat of invasion (which, of course, it isn't by the time of LOTR).
I don't foresee a battle of thousands being necessary (like the famous battles of Five Armies, Helm's Deep, or Pelennor Fields), and such a battle wouldn't really fit in canon (which I strive to keep). But an engagement of two sides of a few hundred each seems like it will be necessary.
Request: Has anyone come to a similar conclusion? Has anyone found or created a set of battle rules? (I think there were some in TOR 1e, but I am not sure, as I never bought it).
If you have anything to share, I would be grateful.
PS: I have posted this question on other forums like r/oneringrpg and RPGGeek, and have received some preliminary answers. While I am extremely appreciative of the input I have gotten, no suggestion has, so far, sounded like something I would want to integrate into my game (tastes differ, after all). I am starting to think I may have to homebrew my own rule-set, which has got me thinking about what I want out of any battle rules. Below are my general thoughts on the matter, which may be of interest (or not).
My ideal kind of system would 1) be relatively uncomplicated and narratively focused, such that we don't reduce the battle to a math problem or one giant dice-roll and 2) keep "zoomed in" on our PC's individual actions, but provide a way for our individual actions in combat to both influence and be influenced by the context of the wider battle. I think a good / realistic system would allow for 4 distinct outcomes: 1. the PC's side wins the battle, and the PC (or PCs) are personally victorious (ie: they defeat the foes they engaged), 2. the PC's side wins, but the PC(s) were either killed or forced to flee the battle, 3. the Enemy wins the battle, despite the fact that the PC(s) were personally victorious, and 4. the Enemy wins and the PC(s) were killed or forced to flee.
At the moment (unless someone has an already finished rule-set), I am thinking of mixing the mechanics for combat with those of a skill endeavor--with the actions of the PC(s) in their own combat increasing or decreasing the likelihood of success on a series of meta-rolls (possibly an Oracle roll) that will determine the course of the battle with a pre-determined success threshold, like a skill endeavor. I imagine that, if the battle is turning against the PCs, their combats would get harder (more / tougher enemies), and if things are going well, the PC's combats would get easier.
Just some preliminary musing....