After reading a post on the subject of whether or not to move your starting settler to a hills/plain square (lose one or two turns of research for one extra hammer of production for the whole game), I thought I might try it. The setting seemed perfect since the two-move jump put me at a hill/plain on the coast. I'm working on my early warmongering and found that this move hurt me in an unexpected way: I was now 2 moves further from my nearest enemy. Later turns revealed that I had no nearby horses, though copper was easy to get at a second city--but located east of me, whereas the neighbors are south. This means that I'm at least 3 turns slower at getting an army to my enemy (lost first turn, two travel turns). Even building a road doesn't affect the calculation since there's no way I'd get the road all the way to my enemy before my first attack. Hmmm. This causes me to think of another thought--exactly opposite to the title of the post: maybe if I start near the coast, I could move my starting settler _away_ from the coast in the expectation that that would put me closer to my soon-to-be-found enemy. If I don't lose too many resources and especially if my starting scout/warrior can help with the exact choice of spots. Obviously, these points are very situation-dependent, but when trying to micro-optimize, they might be of use.