My position is that the order in which seats are assigned for team games is unfair.
Now, I understand that in any game there is obviously luck involved, because whichever team draws the first seat normally ends up with an advantage, because they are first to act.
This changes in team games, however:

Example of a 2v2 game, where A & B are the teams, the seats are assigned:
A, B, A, B

In this case, A's 2nd/3rd/etc player ALSO has the advantage over B's 2nd/3rd/etc player.
I think the algorithm should be modified such that the order for seat assignment reverses (much like draft in most sports leagues) for the 2nd/3rd/etc round of seat assignments

Example:
A, B, B, A

This might not make a huge difference with only 2 teams, but as the number of teams increases, the discrepancy of seat position advantage/disadvantage grows exponentially.
In an example of an 8 teams of 2 game (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H), team H goes 8th and 16th, which is a deficit that could be seen as nearly impossible to overcome.
Swap the order for each subsequent round of seat assignments, and you end up balancing almost everything: team A gets to go first, but then has to wait 15 more turns until they get to go again, but then they get to go twice.

Or maybe I'm not looking at this correctly, and people think that the team that draws first position deserves an advantage in all rounds, and it will all balance out over the course of many games (because players will draw equal number of first, middle, and late seat assignments over time).

In your 2v2 example, it all looks fine on paper, but it results in play that looks like..

A, A, B, B,

..which all but defeats the purpose of having teams in the first place.

I disagree:  It would be A1, B1, B2, A2.
Which I agree will look like A2,A1,B1,B2 starting at the end of round 1 of turns.

But if you now add cards into the mix, A1 above would still have an advantage of first position, because he's the first who will have the chance at trading cards.
In the above example, A2 (who looks to be playing "before" A1) is still playing only his 3rd turn, and therefore would not be in a position to trade cards.
A1 is really playing his 4th turn, and therefore could have enough cards to trade.

I understand your position on 2v2, though, and would be willing to forego a change in that example.

1 and 2s aside, ABBA is the same as BAAB, which is the same as AABB, BBAA.  Bottom line: It ruins the point of teams to have teammates playing next to each other in the order. Consider that with Team Fortify ON it would totally change the way a game would be played.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

I disagree:  It would be A1, B1, B2, A2..

 Looks like we might want to agree to disagree.  That still looks like ABBA = AABB to me, though I suppose I might possibly agree with you that nuances pertaining to which partner goes first have game-changing significance. 

If I understand your proposal, with any number of 2-player teams, there will always be at two teams that end up having back to back turns.  ABCCBA, ABCDDCBA, etc..

In your 8 team example, if you swap the order on the second round, teams A & H get to go twice in a row.  It seems to me this is a huge benefit (much easier to take out other players), that more than makes up for a benefit due to turn order.

In fact, for most maps I disagree that going first is an advantage.  If cards are increasing, then any advantage to getting the first attacks, is countered by the card value being less when you turn in.

I would be ok with random shuffling that checks to make sure no teams go twice in a row, and shuffles again if that happens.

Ozyman wrote:

In fact, for most maps I disagree that going first is an advantage.  If cards are increasing, then any advantage to getting the first attacks, is countered by the card value being less when you turn in.

This is why many who go first often place armies and pass, which still gives them an advantage.  We could of course debate this until the cows come home, but regardless of the reasons, statistics speak to the reality that going first (on most boards) gives the advantage to players in early seats.

This is why many who go first often place armies and pass, which still gives them an advantage. 

I haven't gone through a lengthy statistical analysis, but I'd think that this is true.

And maybe my solution isn't the best solution.
But at the very least I feel like the current solution has a significant downside in large number of team games, and propose that maybe a different algorithm could be employed to correct for this downside (even at the expense of perhaps introducing other small inequities).

I do like the idea of dropping all seats into a hopper and assigning independent of team membership.
At least then I'd feel like if a team gets spots 1 and 3 (out of 16 available) that it was because it was randomized, not because Team X always has the disadvantage, and someone has to be Team X.