This is nonsense.

It is still a turn based strategy. If it comes down to who can click the fastest to get a particular goal, or making the difference between the loss of a fleet and a crippling blow to your enemy, then I consider that as a strategical mistake on your part for allowing yourself to get into that position.

Knowing full well that turns are simultaneous from the beginning of the game, you should play accordingly. Your strategy should take that into account. Don't make the mistake of doing things where the outcome is all down to who can click first the next turn, unless you wish to make that risk for a potentially bigger pay off.

The idea I am understanding from mutliple turns at the same time is in general

If I can reach objective x on this turn and you cant we go at the same time

If you can reach objective x on this turn and I cant we go at the same time

If we can both reach objective x on this turn then it is resolved by original turn order

The implementation complexity to sort that type of thing out is going to get ugly very fast, as will any attempt at "sometimes it's simultaneous and sometimes not".

so much theorycrafting. whether something "works" can't really be judged so abstractly

for example, civ4 and civ5 use very similar turn-based methods. but the game design and how the unit control is set up is what really determines whether a system works well enough (civ4 simultaneous turns) or fails miserably (civ5 simultaneous turns)

if galciv 3 is anything like galciv 2, i will say that the ultra-competitive games where players really would care about avoiding a high-speed click war are probably going to be on very quick settings with 2 teams and always war and no diplomacy where turn-based won't kill the experience too much

eg. all players on team A take their move simultaneously. then all players on team B take their move simultaneously

that way there isn't any incentive to prolong turns until the last second. there won't be any incentive to click quickly to get an advantage.

In what way does Civ 5 fail miserably with simultaneous turns? I think it works so much better than Civ 4.

civ 5 is a click war

civ 4 is a TBS

Civ 5 is only a click war if you fail to take into account what could happen next turn if your opponent is able to act before you. You should keep that in consideration when actually developing and playing out your strategy.

Strategy games multiplayer as always been difficult to overcome for many players, I mean, my Heroes-5 Hotseat game with my brother has lasted a week now.

We played 5 games, 2 HOMM3 after nearly a decade break and lost them all till now lol...

I think it's in due time you play a simultanously TBS MP. It Works great.

And no, RTS doesent do it better. It's still the turn based mechanism, even though the players move simultanously. You just have to adapt some extra carefullness when it comes to battles. Good sonar systems, and speed to run away or hunt down, will be extremely important.

1) Everyone plays turn at same time.  Orders are saved (build this unit, build this upgrade, unit move to X, unit attack Y, etc).  No unit actually moves yet or starts combat yet (needless to say, units/upgrades also do not happen yet).

2) Everyone waits for all players to 'end turn' (or timer runs out)

3) Once all have ended their turn, units become built/upgraded, units that attack do so, then units that move do so.

4) All players get a report on what happened within their visible sphere.

5) Go back to step 1.

This is how it works in games like Dominions: a game where online multiplayer games run over a course of months. One complicating factor can be the order of event execution in cases where two (or more) players hit a province in the same turn.

Now that I think of it I MoO2 was the same.

It could be quite complicated to implement a system like this in GC3, however, because the map is more open. In Dominions and MoO2 there are finite points of interest on the map, in the form of provinces and sytems respectively, while map movement in the GC series is more free form. This could pose some design challenges when it comes to things like engagement of opposing fleets (among many others, I would guess).

Why would engagement be a problem?  Attack orders execute first.  Conquest of the new world uses this sytem and is also open just like gal civ.   It does not have any problem.  Handling multiple attack orders is simply a die roll (assuming both invading units are equal distance to target; priority given to closest unit), with one order possibly not getting executed:

Scenario: A atttacks C, B attacks C

C defeats A, thus B attacks C.

A defeats C, thus B does not execute attack order.

I can't comment about Conquest of the New World, but in the context of previous GC games you attack the unit where it is because it's not going to move. With queued orders and simultaneous turn processing there is the potential for something not to be where it was by the time you get there.

In your scenario: A attacks C, B attacks C.

First, some system is needed to determine who moves first. In this case, let's say C moves before A and A moves before B.

C moves away from A, does A i) move to where C was, ii) chase C or iii) do nothing?
Likewise, does B i) move to where C was (potentially ending move on the same location as A, so one fleet may block the other), ii) chase C (potential for blocking as in case i) or iii) do nothing?

I'm not saying it's not solvable; it would, however, require some design decisions.

Not sure what I'm failing to communicate, because this isn't an issue.

What is difficult to understand about attacking units executing first?  That means, if a unit attacks you, your unit only moves if it survives the attack.

As stated already, distance would determine which attack happens first.  If equally distanced, then flip a coin (random number generator).

Do you now have your answer?

I have your answer. I can't say I would make the same decisions.

It could be pretty simple to avoid a click war. With all the different ship possibilities and different production rates, most conflicts can be handled even during simultaneous play.

A distance + speed equation would need to be developed for the examples but I'm not going to go into how it is developed really. So just assume that the equation is already in place.

Example 1: 2 ships attempting to colonize the same planet.

Simply have all ships attempting to colonize wait at the planet and see if there is any contention by the end of the turn. From here, who actually colonizes the planet is based on the speed/distance equation. If another player attempts to colonize the same planet the ship that has the better result of the equation will win at the end of the turn so at the beginning of the next turn the owner will gain control of the planet and can commence building on it. In the case that both ships have the same speed and were an equal distance from the planet (equations equals the same), some other form of determination can be used. I.E. random number generator or an original turn order.

This would also work for starbases.

Example 2: 2 Planets owned by different civilizations attempting to build a unique building.

Many planets will have completely different production capabilities dependent upon size, number of factories, types of factories, production spending, ect. Each building has a number of production points required to build it. Two planets building the same unique building that finishes on the same turn would not actually finish at the same time in that turn (at least not likely). The one that is closer to being finished (has fewer points needed at the end of the last turn) will be the more likely to finish first. The points added at the beginning of this turn would be added till one finishes first. In the case that there is an equal number of points left between both planets, the planet with the higher production capability will finish first. In the case that there is an equal number of points left and both planets have an equal production capability (really unlikely but possible) a different form of determination is used. I.E. random number generator or an original turn order.

Example 3: Attacking.

This one is a bit harder but still possible. If attacking another ship/fleet. the faster ship/fleet will determine whose action takes precedent. If both players wish their ship/fleet to attack the same opposing ship/fleet then there isnt much problem. If one player wishes to attack another ship/fleet but the other player wishes to perform a different action, the speed/distance eq and direction of the ships will determine whose order takes precedent at the end of the turn. If the other player is retreating for example the attacking ships may or may not be able to catch up in order to attack on that turn. If retreating ship/fleet is slower but still far enough away it can still get away from the attacking ships though the attacking ships will catch up turn by turn till they are no longer able to get away. In a case where ships attack a starbase or planet and the defending player is moving a constructor or more ships to or from that planet/starbase, the better equation ship's takes priority first. if the constructor's equations is better, it will be able to build on that before the ships are able to attack, but the attackers would commence attacking after the constructor adds to the starbase (players will need to plan for this or have an option to cancel the attack). if the ships moving to defend a planet have the better equation, then they will reach the planet first and the attacking ships will need to deal with them. if ships on a planet are trying to get away, they would easily be able to get away and the attacking ships would deal with any ships left on the planet or the planet itself. in a case where the ships are not troop transports, the attacking ships can then commence following the retreating ships and the case would then return to example 1. Now in another case of two players wishing to attack a third players ship/fleet/planet, the ship with the better of equation of the two player's attacking ships will take precedent and the case will return to example one between the attacker and the defender. 

There are a few flaws i can see with this granted. But that doesnt mean there is no work around. I only had to spend about 5-10 minutes thinking about this while reading the other posts to come up with these solutions. With more thought they can be ironed out to be acceptable to players.

What do you guys think?

Edit: fixed a couple of typos.