or, another argument against cycling move orders:https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10394504
Turn 8: I decide I will hold Cuba/Caribbean Islands one more turn and then exploit the move orders.
Turn 9: Strategos moves before Macedon. Strategos grabs East Canada and a +5 to be able to deploy 25.
Turn 10: Macedon goes first. But it is a crucial turn. He will use the order priority. Ok. Let him. I'll save mine in case I need it later.
Turn 11: I go first.
Turn 12: I debated letting him hit me before I entered SA. Game was over if I had. Too bad. Wasted use of card.
Turn 13: Strategos goes before Macedon. It doesn't matter. But from Turn 9 to 13, Strategos has first order four times, Macedon once.
Turn 15: Orange has first move on Strategos. My team just got a +5 and OP card. Strategos uses the OP to avoid orange's attack and to bust Macedon's final bonus.
With random move order, none of this could have been telegraphed/planned. Random move order is superior to this cycling shit in team games because it forces people to make the best move based on more possible outcomes. Strategically hedging your luck is far more difficult. When the move orders can be exploited to the advantage of one team, it is not more strategic. It is stacking the odds against the other team. Is it fair to be able to have first order 4 of 5 key turns and to be able to plan how you will manipulate this situation? I don't think so. And with 0% SR, the planning can be surgical. 3v2s expand quicker and find enemy soft spots/bonuses quicker.
As the number of players in team games increases, the negative effects of cycling orders worsen.