Maybe it's time for a reminder on what the categories are. I'm deliberately ignoring the "Top" and "Bottom" tiers for the time being, and leaving out which Civs are where for the moment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Tier: these civs are great, they are guaranteed to have good starts and/or can salvage bad ones.
Upper-Mid Tier: these civs are very good, they can be as good as upper tier civs under most circumstances.
Middle Tier: these civs are good, they have solid bonuses, or strong bonuses that are sometimes affected by factors outside of their control. They will often not perform at the level of upper tier civs.
Lower-Mid Tier: these civs are pretty good, they either have overall mediocre bonuses or ones which are strongly reliant on factors outside of their control. Rarely will they perform at the level of upper tier civs.
Lower Tier: these civs are decent, they have bonuses that are unspectacular, or extremely burdensome to manage. On average they still work well enough to be considered "balanced".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading that over, I read that as "Upper", "Middle", and "Low". Upper Civs are guaranteed to have a strong game - their starts are
going to be strong (e.g. Arabia) and/or their exact start isn't that important because their nice bonus doesn't really depend on it. (e.g. Celts, Ethiopia). These Civs are always going to be solid contenders for the player as you will never really be in a bad spot.
Next comes the Middle tier, and it's subdivided into three parts based mostly on how likely they are to do as well as the tier above them. Upper-Middle will be that good more often than not - their bonuses are solid and usually work, but they can sometimes get boned by terrain (think Rome, with a weak Capital location). Next comes the Middle-Middle; their bonuses are again solid and can let them compete with the Upper tier, but are less likely to happen (Think Netherlands - amazing with Flood Plains or Marsh, unremarkable without. Think Aztecs - with a good Lake they have amazing Food, or with some Production they do really well, otherwise struggle in the jungle). After that is the Low-Middle: their bonuses will occasionally let them perform at the level of those Upper, but that's unlikely (Think Sweden - if he escapes the Tundra start, he's great. Otherwise, not so good).
Finally is Low tier. With a solid start, these Civs will be decent, but otherwise will just not hold up well. A lucky India will be able to grow some big cities and do all right for himself, but he'll never be a powerhouse. Okay, but just never the best.
Top and Bottom tiers don't really fit into the above discussion: they're almost totally off the curve in their respective directions. Top Tier is so good that it doesn't matter what start they get. You could stick Babylon in a flat, dry Plains start and it would be almost entirely irrelevant - he'd still be competing like an Upper tier. In the other direction, the Iroquois almost need an in-game editor to give them an advantage by covering the world in trees, and it still wouldn't give them the kind of bonuses the Upper tier enjoy regularly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, now that that's said...
America needs a GOOD start and is screwed without it. Washington's extra sight can't find him something that's not there - seeing ruins first hinges on there being a bunch of ruins in his vicinity right away. No guarantees there. Otherwise, regular scouts do an adequate job of spotting city sites and such. In wartime, it's a convenience for spotting for artillery. In real warfare, seeing farther would mean something. In Civ, it's far less important. About the tile buying discount: I have a hard time justifying any gold on tile purchasing early-on, when the discount matters most. I've got Libraries, Granaries, and Units to pull together before I fall behind in growth, tech, or army. The B17 is irrelevant. The military game is either won or lost by the time Radar comes online - the difference between B17s and Bombers isn't really important vs. the AI anyway. The Minuteman is cool, but one decent infantry unit doesn't justify promotion out of "Lower" to me.
The Aztecs are right where they belong. Lakes and/or decent Production Jungle starts aren't all that common. Get either/or and Montezuma's laughing all the way to the endgame. Get neither and you're at a disadvantage, because you can't build
<snip> to get out of early game, fall behind, and suffer against the AI.
The Netherlands are fine too - like I said above: get a good start for the Polder and things are great for William of Orange. Fail to get a good start for it and you've got a much smaller bag of tricks. The Sea Beggar is a very strong version of the Naval unit that
doesn't do the heavy lifting in Naval warfare. The Dutch East India Company is a small but reliable early game bonus.
Moderator Action: Please do not try to avoid the autocensor.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889