1250BC: The MM on science rate is misplaced. Later in the game you can do this, but right now with lots of workers and settlers in production, the number of beakers will fluctuate. Better to keep things on a high pace, then MM the last turn or two to squeeze off any remainder that would go to waste. You have a good idea there, but you could actually lose research turns that way at this stage, with population rising and falling all over the place.
1225BC: London settler not moving toward purple dot? Does not sound good. I better open your save file and have a look-see.
...
Ah. Well, the good news is, you did NOT lose control of that land. The bad news is, your settlement location down there is a low-yield choice.
Take a look at Hotrod's game. His Liverpool choice was not where I thought the best choice in that region would be, BUT it was not a bad choice because the city still has a lot of potential. Your choice here IS a bad choice because it so severely limits max food and thus city size and city power.
Let me show you the difference between your site and the purple dot. I've marked off tiles here in four colors. When comparing your site to the hill tile just west of there that I've been recommending for the last couple of rounds, here is the difference in the tiles available.
Green marks tiles your site gained free and clear with the change. Yellow marks overlap tiles with Oxford you gained access to. Purple marks tiles you had access to at the other spot but gave up to move to your spot. Red marks overlap tiles with Ninevah that you gave up.
Just counting green vs purple, you traded: 3 jungles, 2 lake (1 w/fish), 1 grassland FOR 1 jungle, 1 lake, 2 hills, 1 mountain.
Food potential for each jungle is FOUR per tile (clear tile to grass, irrigate, rails, 4 food). Each lake is TWO per tile +2 for fish. Each hill is 1 food. Mountains are zero food.
That's 22 food potential (could support ELEVEN population) for 8 food. 22-8=14, or SEVEN population lost off the max city size.
Looking at the overlap tiles also, you traded two jungle for two mountains and one jungle. Presuming the city could take control of the overlap tiles in both cases, that's four more net food potential lost.
In most cases, city sites can be nonoptimal or patterns can differ with little real change or loss of potential. When it comes to areas of thick mountains, hills, or tundra, where many tiles have less than the required potential of 2 food per tile, you have to take into consideration the food potential, above all else, or your cities in these situations will be crippled. (Smegged had a big run-in with this phenomenon in RBD16).
Deserts, which cannot get to 2 food per tile without railroads, are another region you have to watch out for. Yet... an all desert city can, with enough time and help, get to size 21 with all irrigation and rails on every tile.
The max food potential of your chosen site is 22, counting the two from your center tile. That's a max city size of 11. Your site has 13 mountains in range, at least 9 of which will lie forever dormant and unused, because there won't be food to support them.
The max food potential of the hill site I preferred is 40, which would allow for a max city size of 20, which could just barely (with hospital and full irrigation/rails) put every tile in range to use. Those otherwise "useless" mountain tiles could be mined and railed for a big, big boost in shields. It would take a little more worker attention, but that's half a city's worth of difference in potential.
And yet... this is going to sound. And yet, even though you only have a half-city in the area because of your tile choice, you at least have the half-city. In Hotrod's game, the Babs have control of that land. Your choice is not good in itself, but it does leave room to squeeze another mini-city in there due south of London, next to the fish. So just getting any city out there, in that region, has some benefits.
...
1200BC: Worker at London to clear jungle??
![Pimp [pimp] [pimp]](/images/smilies/pimp.gif)
You make this nice library move (which I liked) and let the city grow, but don't take the time to improve those easy plains tiles?? Instead you are going to tie up the lone worker in the area for the next millenium clearing jungles, while London is already running short on food??

The jungle could wait. There are cleared, yet unimproved, tiles just lying around begging for worker attention.
1100BC: Might be able to shave a turn off that Philosophy to run science at 100%. With a fat treasury, you could afford it. The sooner you get to Republic, the sooner you can revolt and improve civ-wide income and production with lower corruption, getting rid of despotism penalty, and extra trade! (Main downside will be losing MP ability, but we can run lux, we'll have a ton of extra money). Point being, the treasury is not yet earning any interest, no sense accumulating cash: spend a little to speed research for a governmental change!
1000BC: Your Nottingham settler missed production this turn by a single shield. One shield! I know that I got mine out, so you lost a city-turn here for the new city, delaying all its future progress by one turn from here out to infinity.
Overall Grade: C

count: None. (Lots of good stuff, but nothing stood out as exceptional)

count: Two. (Liverpool location, London jungle move)
- Sirian