So, A few years back I had posted the same question on the NL-Forum and had gotten a half-assed response, so I thought I'd post it again here. My apologies if it has been already, but here goes:
Why is the Northern quadrant more favorable to pick when in the Tutorial it's clearly stated that choosing one quadrant over another doesn't affect gameplay in any way?
Please see the following picture of the WW located at (0|0) and the distance between it and the nearest fields surrounding it.
Notice how the fields up top are much closer to the WW than those at the bottom. This makes for some unfair gameplay. The players located North have an easier time settling their villages north of the WW (where they are closer to the WW) than players whose initial villages are in the Southern quadrant. From those newer villages (which, again, are closer to the WW than those south of it) they have a better time conquering and defending the WW once conquered than players South of the WW would have.
Is this fair?
When I first asked this question, the answer went something like "Well that's the design choice we went for and with it comes its pros and cons.", but then I'd ask do we really put asthetics over fair gameplay?
And then there are some who might think a difference of 2 fields isn't a big deal. To you I'll ask, do you send in a siege attack before or after your raid? After all, what difference would 1 second make, right?