Dice roll to determine speed of attack

Just for clarification, attack speed is the same is initiative like other games might have?

First, not knowing the theme of your game, is there anything thematically that would help to pick a direction? My only initial reaction to your ideas was that I wouldn't want the determination of attack speed to be too complicated so It overshadows the attack itself. That being said, I would keep the attack speed or initiative roll simple. No more than 2 dice.

If each players choice is committed prior to the dice rolls, then is there any thought of rolling different color dice at the same time to determine speed? Let's say for ease of calculation stick my no more than 2 dice suggestion. Also, do the players start out with any starting value based on their characters or roles?

If the players choices are not 100% committed such that given the attack success or failure, the other player can choose to retreat or flee, would you be amenable to rolling in sequence? you could also work this to allow a Player a last-second decision to not engage in the flight.

A third option could be that the weaker attack (i.e., less dice) simply goes first if there is always going to be that difference. In the game 1775, the defender always goes first. I don't see why that couldn't be an equitable solution without having to necessarily calculate or randomize something. I would focus on the attack and damage more so.

Well, after my week vacation. Let me reply at least to the 20% chance.

That is a chance after the blind choice, right? In that case players still want to roll to have that "survival" chance.

A chance of "1/6th" is the lowest chance that players are willing to take (if forced) until it becomes a "futile" chance. Although you should try to keep these chances rare. Or as an extra roll for a bonus effect. Then they are willing to go as far as "1/12th" or even lower depending on the bonus strength.

If players are allowed to take a chance by choice. Then the strength of the result has to be taken into account as well. They often dislike to go any lower than "1/3th".

I have given examples that mirror my personal preferences. But younger ages (less patient players) need higher chances than the older ages.

For the young, I suggest 1/2th (50-50), 1/4th (so not the 20% you have posted) and 1/8th (lowest chance for a bonus) as guidance.

I'm concerned that your plan will not create the drama that you're looking for, but will just be a source of frustration for the one who loses more often.

You said that the first attack negates the second one, so it means that attacking first is the most important element. I assume that there are other actions you might do, so there isn't always this speed conflict at all. So you can use that to create decision tension, which you should generally be looking for in games.

I suggest you go back to having fixed speeds per weapon, or maybe mostly fixed but with a small amount of randomness. Then make the weapons that are fast do little damage, and the weapons that do a lot of damage are slow.

As the player, I have to make a tough decision. If I think my opponent is going to attack me, then I want the fastest weapon I can get my hands on. I won't hurt him much, but I'll prevent him from hurting me. On the other hand, if I am pretty sure he's going to do something else (and I still want to attack) then I want to get the most damaging weapon I can use, with the risk that if he does attack, I'm going to waste my turn.

I like this idea maybe not for the game of the topic but it is a really interesting mechanic to test...

It seems to go well only for average values of speed and damage. Only in the middle you can hit AND make damage... going to extreme values is a sure fail.

If someone when roll takes low values he will go for a conservative play, going to extreme speed to avoid damage.

Anyway it seems to go for a slow gameplay with a high amount of fail attempts.