There is "normal" turn-based gameplay. In this mode a single player act and all other players wait.

This thread is about simultaneous turns. Not all multiplayer turn-based games use this, but some do (and some, like civ 3 allows usage of both modes of turn-based gameplay in different modes). In simultaneous turns, players' actions can overlap to some degree, but the game is still not realtime (in realtime, such as starcraft, units can all constantly move at the same time, and there is no "end of turn" were specific things happen like refilling unit movement points, do income etc). In turn based, typically only one action is resolved at a time (which makes simultanous turns tricky to implement). Also, when no players are issuing commands, the game is not moving forward (in realtime games the game goes on all the time).

That was some explanation on what simultaneous turns are.

In this thread, Im asking about how to best implement simultaneous turns. There seem to be two major ways of doing this, and some feedback has been given on both as you can read in the thread. If you are not experienced in simultaneous turns, maybe you are not the right person to offer help on the subject.

1 hour ago, Talvysh said:

I don't understand what you mean by "simultaneous turns".

When you don't understand something, you ask for clarification, or look it up, or just don't join the discussion. What you don't do is try to convince the OP that they don't know what they are talking about.

Games with simultaneous turns exist, and they are very much turn-based. Two examples off the top of my head are Frozen Synapse and Battlestar Galactica: Deadlock. There's more examples (and more nuanced subtypes of turns) on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turns,_rounds_and_time-keeping_systems_in_games

On 9/27/2019 at 8:04 PM, suliman said:

Do players move there armies at the same time, and (since there is battles when armies meet) it's first come first serve? Meaning when a new turn starts, all armies refills their movement and the player who moves first simply moves first (actions are resolved directly). 

That is called real-time, However, it is a strange variant of real-time.

On 9/27/2019 at 8:04 PM, suliman said:

Or would all players assign orders, and when complete, all actions resolves in a separate "mid-turn phase" where no players have the ability to interact further?

The second one seems more fair but also makes the game slower.

Compared to Civilization, this option would make the game faster because you can make decisions at the same time as everyone else. However, if you attack a unit in front of you, but the enemy decides to move away, how would you handle that situation? If you start a path around a large obstacle, but the enemy decided to move their units off of a bridge (a shortcut), how would you handle that situation?

You don't want the player to waste their turn. These are very tough game design questions.

I'll also add that I think Civilization is one of the worst games I have ever played--along side Atari's E.T. because in a multiplayer game, n / (n+1) of your time is spent WAITING!

I used to play the old letter based "play by mail" games, where you would plot your units movement orders, (which hexes they move through) and set their aggression level and retreat threshold etc. You would get a letter back with the turns results a week later...

The computer moderator would resolve turns by putting everyone's orders and movement plots and resolving them in order (faster units move first, combats resolved as they happen etc) in strict order. So a unit with movement 12 would move two hexes in the time with a unit with move 6 would move for example.

This system creates a very realistic and tactical experience, but it's not a game for those short of attention span or players who require instant feedback.

4 hours ago, TheBlackRattie said:

You would get a letter back with the turns results a week later...

And you'd probably finish the game before Civilization 5 entered "mid-game".

If you're making a single player game, there's also that style where the computer moves in time with the player. See 'Nova-111'. It's an interesting real-time-turn-based hybrid.

As I see it the purpose of simultaneous turns is to focus more on strategy and less on micro management of specific combats as the range of possibilities expands massively compared to dealing with a simple dice throw. It potentially makes for a more "realistic" experience, but is a significant step up in terms of challenge for the resolution manager. The old board Game "Diplomacy" is an example of a simple simultaneous turn game.