city placement decisions
Positions of city D, E and F I proposed, are of course subject to variation after refining scouting the interested area.
E and F were indicated just to show that the placement of city "A" allows the settling of a couple of more cities in the area to share that food.
Position of B and D are provisional, and showed mostly to understand if hooking marble/stone was for you guys a priority.
Position of C was also just dropped there to show there is space for another city there later, which might also hook 2 seafood resources.
Without building any early wonder right next, the city I personally would definitely settle here on this map, is city "A"!
next city placement
So, starting from what I just said above, I agree on everything Habitus said in the previous posts, except on moving the placement of "A" city 2S.
Doing so, in name of gaining a (seafood less!) coastal city, we end up giving up on both fresh water access and early hooking the pigs in CFC.
IMO, with plenty of nice better alternatives for a coastal city, settle "A" in its stronger strategical position should be a priority: placed in its stronger position this city would likely be one of ours best cities.
So, I believe that if the need it is a very early coastal city next, then let's just settle that coastal city somewhere else better than 2S from "A", where we could also hook a (or a couple of) seafood resource(s) with it, and then settle city "A" later, as our third city or such.
The purpose here is to underline that, for the way I understand the game, "A" seems a really strong position to me for our next city.
But take this just as my opinion: if we end up choosing for our second city the coastal spot 2S from "A", I won't complain.
- yatta.
Positions of city D, E and F I proposed, are of course subject to variation after refining scouting the interested area.
E and F were indicated just to show that the placement of city "A" allows the settling of a couple of more cities in the area to share that food.
Position of B and D are provisional, and showed mostly to understand if hooking marble/stone was for you guys a priority.
Position of C was also just dropped there to show there is space for another city there later, which might also hook 2 seafood resources.
Without building any early wonder right next, the city I personally would definitely settle here on this map, is city "A"!
next city placement
So, starting from what I just said above, I agree on everything Habitus said in the previous posts, except on moving the placement of "A" city 2S.
Doing so, in name of gaining a (seafood less!) coastal city, we end up giving up on both fresh water access and early hooking the pigs in CFC.
IMO, with plenty of nice better alternatives for a coastal city, settle "A" in its stronger strategical position should be a priority: placed in its stronger position this city would likely be one of ours best cities.
So, I believe that if the need it is a very early coastal city next, then let's just settle that coastal city somewhere else better than 2S from "A", where we could also hook a (or a couple of) seafood resource(s) with it, and then settle city "A" later, as our third city or such.
The purpose here is to underline that, for the way I understand the game, "A" seems a really strong position to me for our next city.
But take this just as my opinion: if we end up choosing for our second city the coastal spot 2S from "A", I won't complain.
- yatta.
and 
icons so cut out most of them 
)
in cities hooking up food resources. And if we hook up marble ad/or stone soon or later, it is good for both planned wonders and gold failures.
