The start is mediocre but I don't think it's the worst. Certainly wouldn't reroill. The worst things about it are the lack of luxury, and that you are England (weak civ) but it has hills and a bit of food and that's just what anyone needs to win. The worst starts IMO are the ones that lack hills. I'd rather have low food and have unused tiles then to be able to work them all for no production. I would settle SW next to the crab and research sailing and then mining; builder first. I'd look to the west for land and then it really depends on what you revealed next. IMO Birmingham is not a good city. It's going to take forever to do anything as settling on the Mercury means no improvements and just +1 science. I You also didn't need to get that luxury that fast; mining is quick to get.. I would have settled it on that river spot above the Marble. Not only does it have better housing and food, it would also have allowed another city down on the southern coast.next to the amber. Especially with food poor starts AND low luxury starts like these, you really need to put down more cities closer together because you will not be able to take advantage of all the tiles for a long while if you try to space them out. If your land sucks you need to compensate it with infrastructure, and the only way to get more of the same districts is to have more cities. And also your capital is rather unfortunate-- it's blocking any city placement near it. I'd probably go for that spot near the crabs against the CS. There should only be one spot left there. It'll be able to share some of the capitals hills and it's got enough food to do so. I'd also look at what's near that barb scout to the west. That can fit one more city but not sure if it'll be any good. As for the spot over there with the cotton. I wouldn't rush to it unless you meet someone else. That's going to be a slow city; I'd settle directly on the cotton below the warrior.