jesusin, challeger, goal: gold. Result: 1750AD conquest.
After DeGaule I built a useless Colossus just because I could. It got obsoleted so soon.
Optics 720AD.
1000AD stats: 12city, 81pop, 7wor, 45units(Treb,Mace), copper, iron. 6Lux, 6health. 2GP,1WW, 0NW, 1GG. FPG: 211-95-253. 255sust bpt, 11GPPpt, 1200g. 0Relig. 17cottages used. 31Techs: CS, Feud, Engi, Optics, no Aesth. 13hours. 1vassal, circumn.
Around 1000AD I dowed Hannibal. Lost unit after unit by not gathering a good stack but just disembarking as galleys got there.


Astronomy soon after. Took his capital and all important Pyramids in 1160AD. Anyway, I think it would have been better to have attacked the backwards Charlemagne, who discovered Feudalism just then, instead of Hannibal.
Boudica was so strong that I went Eastwards. Charlemagne was dowed in 1300AD, Gilga in 1400AD. HE and NE were built then (so late). A GE was used on Sistine's to get our domination sooner. I hadn't realized that Conquest would be fastest and probably more satisfying scorewise.
At 1500AD I was wondering if I would be able to win the game. 30 units stacks were attacking my troops.
When the AP religion spread, I accepted Charlemagne capitulation together with his only city with the religion.
In 1600AD I adopted Nationalism and sheer numbers were in my favour from then on. I dowed Boudica and Justy there and then. Defyied the AP decision to leave Justy alone, killed 25 units in a single interturn, and were surprised by Justy's capitulation, when he had lost only 2 border cities out of his 15 cities.
The last to fall was Boudica. I made a terrible mistake and allowed her to take an island-warrior-protected city. She wouldn't capitulate after that. I made her capitulate as fast as I could. I won by conquest in 1750AD. I played more focused on a "fast" conquest than on the gold. I suppose I could have got more points by delaying Boudica capitulation, growing my cities some more and taking more of her cities. It's just that delaying victory doesn't feel right.