Game Mechanics for Simultaneous Battles

[HealingAura]

I am working on a CCG based on the PC game Sacrifice (a fantasy strategy game).

My goal is to make the game to be playable as a game of 1vs1, 2vs2, 1vs1vs1, and 1vs1vs1vs1.
This is definitely not going to be a short game (I am aiming for about 20 min per player).

I am trying to come up with gameplay mechanics for simultaneous battles (meaning, all the players can take part of the same combat and all the damage is dealt at the same time).
My biggest concern is that the game will be too complicated, so I am trying to simplify the game in its other aspects.

So far, I have come up with these rules for combat:

1. Starting with the first* player, each player is given an option to initiate a battle
        1.1 if all the players choose not to initiate a battle, the combat phase will end.
        1.2 if a player chooses to initiate a battle, he will have to choose at least 1 of his units to attack an enemy unit. From now on, this player will be called the initiator.
2. After the initiator of the battle has chosen which of his units will attack and their targets, all of that player's attacking units will be turned sideways**.
3. Then, each player, starting with the player after the initiator, is given an option to engage in the battle.
        3.1 If all the other*** players choose not to engage with additional units in the battle, the battle phase will end and all the attacks will be resolved.
                3.1.1 When the battle is over, all the surviving units will be turned back to normal****.
                3.1.2 An option to continue the combat phase with another battle (line 1.)
        3.2 If a player chooses to engage with additional units, all of that player's attacking units will be turned sideways**.

* Which player will be "first player" in each combat is yet to be decide
** When a card of unit is turned sideways (tapped/exhausted), it is to visualize that the unit is currently active in battle and will deal damage to the unit he is currently attacking.
*** A player will not be able to engage with more units if all the other players choose not to engage with additional units
**** When a card of a unit is not turned sideways (untapped/ready), it is to visualize that the unit is currently not doing anything and will not deal any damage in battle.


Lets look at an example for such a battle with 2 players.
Only for the purpose of this example, I will use creatures from MTG as units for my game.

Player1 has 2 units: Redwood Treefolk (3/6) and Panther Warriors (6/3)
Player2 has 3 units: Armored Cancrix (2/5), Elvish Warrior (2/3) and Trained Armodon (3/3)

Player1 chooses to initiate the battle with his Redwood Treefolk (3/6) attacking Player2's Trained Armodon (3/3).
Player2 chooses to engage the battle with his Trained Armodon (3/3) attacking Player1's Panther Warriors (6/3).
Player1 chooses to engage with his Panther Warriors (6/3) attacking Player2's Armored Cancrix (2/5).
Player2 chooses not to engage with his other units (he can't kill anything).
All the damage is dealt at the same time:
- Panther Warriors (6/3), Armored Cancrix (2/5) and the Trained Armodon (3/3) die.
- Redwood Treefolk (3/6) is untapped/readied
- All damage is removed at the end of the battle
Player1 chooses to initiate the battle with his Redwood Treefolk (3/6) attacking Player2's Elvish Warrior (2/3).
Player2 chooses not to engage with his units (he can't kill anything).
- Elvish Warrior (2/3) dies.
- Redwood Treefolk (3/6) is untapped/readied
- All damage is removed at the end of the battle
Player1 chooses not to initiate a battle
Player2 chooses not to initiate a battle.
The combat phase is over.

What is your opinion?
Do you have a better idea for simultaneous battles?
Do you think you have a way to simplify the combat?

[innuendo]

This isn't simultaneous if you have turned declaration phases.  If player's 2 decisions are based of of what player 1 does then it just can't be simultaneous.  Since you can't attack with everyone unless others attack as well (which is complicated btw), then it just doesn't work, the last player will always have the advantage.

My card game is simultaneous and i've found the best way to do it is grouped phases.  Now since this is a pc game though you can do something I didn't and do secret phases.  If you haven't played diplomacy (a board game) I recommend you do since you can basically copy there combat rules. 

The short version:
First for each of your units you secretly log what you want them to do, for your game this can be as simple as declaring who you will attack or if you chose to "hold" (I recommend some bonus for holding, possible an armor bonus, this adds a good simple layer of strategy)
Second, and when each player is done logging their actions, you reveal all actions and resolve the attacks using what will probably be a simple list of rules.  With what you're describing there shouldn't be many (if any) issues with conflicting actions where it would be difficult to resolve this, and with a pc to crunch numbers you should have no problem.
Third you clean up and have a "movement" phase if you need it, otherwise you just get ready for the next planning phase 1.

[HealingAura]

This isn't simultaneous if you have turned declaration phases.  If player's 2 decisions are based of of what player 1 does then it just can't be simultaneous.  Since you can't attack with everyone unless others attack as well (which is complicated btw), then it just doesn't work, the last player will always have the advantage.

The way I see it, the most important thing for simultaneous combat is that the result of a battle will be at the same time for all the units in that battle. My friend suggested having a deck of choices for each unit, so the players can choose one of the specified actions for that unit. There are two problems with this option: 1. In the actual sacrifice game, like most strategy games, you can see the enemy approaching to you and can react accordingly. 2. implementation targeting can be a disaster if you allow each unit to have many choices (especially in a 4 player game with each player having ~5 units)

My card game is simultaneous and i've found the best way to do it is grouped phases.  Now since this is a pc game though you can do something I didn't and do secret phases.  If you haven't played diplomacy (a board game) I recommend you do since you can basically copy there combat rules.

I haven't. I'll take a look at its game rules.

The short version:
First for each of your units you secretly log what you want them to do, for your game this can be as simple as declaring who you will attack or if you chose to "hold" (I recommend some bonus for holding, possible an armor bonus, this adds a good simple layer of strategy)
Second, and when each player is done logging their actions, you reveal all actions and resolve the attacks using what will probably be a simple list of rules.  With what you're describing there shouldn't be many (if any) issues with conflicting actions where it would be difficult to resolve this, and with a pc to crunch numbers you should have no problem.
Third you clean up and have a "movement" phase if you need it, otherwise you just get ready for the next planning phase 1.

This game is not designed as a PC game, it is supposed to be a customizable card game.
How can u implement such mechanics in a card game?

[Tokimo]

Seems simple enough. I would recommend this alternate scenario though:

Player1 chooses to initiate the battle with his Redwood Treefolk (3/6) attacking Player2's Trained Armodon (3/3).
Player2 chooses to engage the battle with his Trained Armodon (3/3) attacking Player1's Panther Warriors (6/3).
Player1 chooses to engage with his Panther Warriors (6/3) attacking Player2's Armored Cancrix (2/5).
Player2 chooses not to engage with his other units (he can't kill anything).
All the damage is dealt at the same time:
- Panther Warriors (6/3), Armored Cancrix (2/5) and the Trained Armodon (3/3) die.
- Redwood Treefolk (3/6) is untapped/readied
- All damage is removed at the end of the battle
The combat phase is over.

If people can keep getting readied and launch into battle again and again it's quite possible to see a single powerful creature drop onto the board and just waste everything in play.

I'm concerned that with direct creature attacks, there will be very few situations where you'll see interesting combat because the board will always be held by something powerful enough to keep control. If there's a 2/2 in play any solo 1/1 in play will immediately get killed.

[Cyrus]

From my new game's post:

Battle - Players all separate, face down, their Units (including their Lord) into two piles. Once all players have done so they turn their Units right side up and designate each pile's Stance, either Attackers and Defenders (once they are revealed Units cannot change Stance). You may bluff by placing Units in different piles and declaring both piles to be Attackers or Defenders. Starting with the player with initiative, players can now choose to make Attacks against other players. If Units in the Attackers pile do not Attack, they cannot be used as Defenders.

So a player chooses which Attackers attack which Players. The Player who is defending can then choose to use any Units from there Defenders pile to defend against the Attack, or let the Attackers through to their Settlements. For the simplicity of explaining to this here forum, attacks basically work like Magic in terms of comparing stats between Attackers and Defenders.

(obviously ignore anything that doesn't make sense as it is specific to my game)

So that's how I deal with. My combat is meant to work with 4 players, but could handle more. It limits the amount of advantage the last player has because he had to choose what would be able to attack or block at the beginning, so by the time his turn comes around to attack, one of the other players may be weakened, but unless he left some attackers, he won't be able to strike anyway. The last player may also need more defenders since they'll have a chance to get attacked 3 times before their turn.

It isn't 100% simultaneous but it seems good to me

[HealingAura]

Seems simple enough.

That's good to know. I believe that in a 4 players game, it will become a bit more complex.

I would recommend this alternate scenario though:

Player1 chooses to initiate the battle with his Redwood Treefolk (3/6) attacking Player2's Trained Armodon (3/3).
Player2 chooses to engage the battle with his Trained Armodon (3/3) attacking Player1's Panther Warriors (6/3).
Player1 chooses to engage with his Panther Warriors (6/3) attacking Player2's Armored Cancrix (2/5).
Player2 chooses not to engage with his other units (he can't kill anything).
All the damage is dealt at the same time:
- Panther Warriors (6/3), Armored Cancrix (2/5) and the Trained Armodon (3/3) die.
- Redwood Treefolk (3/6) is untapped/readied
- All damage is removed at the end of the battle
The combat phase is over.

If people can keep getting readied and launch into battle again and again it's quite possible to see a single powerful creature drop onto the board and just waste everything in play.

You have a good point. Because of the removal of damage at the end of each battle, a unit with a high defense score (lets say 2/9) can kill an army of small creatres (lets say four units of 2/2) - each turn it will kill a single creature and will be healed.

I'm concerned that with direct creature attacks, there will be very few situations where you'll see interesting combat because the board will always be held by something powerful enough to keep control. If there's a 2/2 in play any solo 1/1 in play will immediately get killed.

I was just talking about the general rules for combat. When I choose the way combat is handled, I will come up with keywords for more tactical combat (like protector or elusive in WoW tcg).