I don't really look to much into best/worst civs. For instance my favorite Civ is the Aztecs.
I think this is the important thing to remember. None of the civs are 'bad' when used to their strengths. Any one of these civs can play to a win on and difficultly level.
ppl who complain about ottomans should try to play them to their best.
about their UA its not that bad if you know how to handle it. first of all you can build a ship without being penalized by paying high amounts of maintenance because of the gold bonus if you convert an enemy vessel. in addition you get easy map control with early triremes and cities build at good seaside locations. nothing you should overlook. dont kill barbarian camps at the coast instead park one ship near it. at last you will reach faster your first general without going to war vs another civ or CS.
Ignoring the lack of capital letters, the issue with the Ottomans is that when you play them to their strengths, you'll be able to roll over a couple civs with Janissaries, get a late-mid game boost. When you play Alexander to his strengths, he wins games by giving you a continent to play with before 1500BC. I did point out that Janissaries were very good, but as noted, they lock you into a single strategy at the diety level. The UA helps mitigate some of the expenses that occur with a military, but honestly, sitting outside a barbarian camp waiting for it to spawn triremes (Or maybe just outside of vision? I don't know how barb spawning works yet.) is no way to build a navy nor is the trait a great economy booster.
This thread and the others I've noticed (How good is (Washington, usually
), Who is the best civ, etc.) are pretty common. Maybe a ranking list is in order? Obviously there is a lot of grey area, and traits vary widely based on map type and play style, but maybe for standard settings to start? I envision it something like this.
Tier 1: Wu Zetian/Alexander/Genghis Khan/Napoleon/Nebuchadnezzar II
Tier 2: Montezuma/Darius I/Hiawatha/Oda Nobunaga/Ramkhamhaeng
Tier 3: George Washington/Askia/Catherine/Augustus Caeser
Tier 4: Harun Al-Rashid/Ramesses II/Gandhi/Elizabeth
Tier 5: Bismarck/Suleiman
With reasons for each tier. And of course, I'll never get to see it because someone will say "But Ramesses is so good! I play him and win 100% of the time on immortal." And they won't understand that the list isn't saying that any civ is bad, just a hasty approximation of power relative to one another, all other factors being equal.
And, of course, I'm not really qualified to rank the civs yet, as I've only had first hand experience with about half of them.