Probably not. I mean ultimately, ALL the Civs can do well, no matter what. And given the state of the AI, you can win on Deity with any Civ really. Plus, luck plays a decent role in the game as well. It would be disingenuous to say there isn’t an optimal way to play the game, but it’s not mandatory to follow it to win. I think it’s generally impossible to create a completely objective tier list because Civs have a niche. Norway is going to be better than some Civs on a water heavy map. And it’s fine to balance on a small Pangea map, but those games are typically dull imo. I prefer shuffle! Multiplayer is a different kettle of fish because some Civs are straight up better than others (Maori meet Canada, for example), but then the balancing can generally be left to the players there. (As an example, we each house ban certain Civs before we start a game. I often ban Australia because I hate its 100% production and I loathe Waltzing Matilda). For me, I much much prefer well designed, cohesive Civs over “strong” ones. The poor Civ I always pick on is Korea. Is Korea strong? Yes! Is it well designed and interesting? Not in my opinion. It makes Kupe harder to dislike because he is faaaaaar too strong imo, but he is really interesting and unique. Eleanor is a good example of where it’s done well. Is her LA strong? Situationally. Is it fun? Always!