Iterative Battle Mechanics?

[Mint Berry Crunch]

I was curious if anyone here uses iterative battle mechanics or are battles resolved in one step? I was also wondering if you think there's any advantage of doing so.

I was thinking for my game (medieval strategy) that battles should be calculated in steps, as we are dealing with ~2000 soldiers vs soldiers along with perks, morale factor etc. The easy way to do it is calculate strength of each army, compare, determine the winner and do some maths to calculate damage dealt to each other. I was thinking of breaking down the battle into chunks, such that some soldiers get killed bit by bit, and each iteration of killing has some sort of random swing thrown in for some good measure, e.g. up to +-5% for each side. A formula will be written for morale factor, where if the amount of allied deaths increases too rapidly then morale drops accordingly and battles could end half-way.

That's all I can think of for now, I don't know if there is room for anything else to throw in that can make it a more dynamic and a more sophisticated mechanic. Perhaps I am overcomplicating something that should stay simple? Tell me if you agree or not. :)

Another question would be, how many iterations? Let's say that in my game a player sends his army off to battle and they won't see a battle report until a couple of hours later. Should I take advantage of this and make it do hundreds of iterations or will much less suffice?

Edited June 7, 2013 by Mint Berry Crunch