OP is a hilarious troll.
That out of the way, my $0,02 starting with Arachnofiend's tier list (shouldn't we open an actual non-troll topic to establish those tiers?
):
- Korea is definitely "god tier", and most probably Babylon as well: science bonuses are incredibly powerful in this game, as they can help win any sort of VC in any map. Ethiopia is simply overpowered, as anyone who ever played on Deity knows. I don't think the Incas are THAT incredible, since they're map-dependant in a sort of way the aforementioned 3 are not.
- Positions in the two middle tiers are basically interchangeable, and so I think they should be just a single "middle" tier. Most of them being good or not comes down to personal preferences and playing style; for example, I suck hard at playing military-minded civs so I think something like Mongolia is terribly bad in my hands. Tiers should be divided in simply "overpowered", "underpowered", and everything else.
- I think the Celts belong in the "underpowered" tier, as basically everything they have going gets quickly outclassed by most other civs. I strongly dislike America too - good scouting and a bunch of barb fights with your scouts can emulate their UA with any civ.
- Some civs, like OP's Polynesia, are incredible on water maps but awful elsewhere, so I'll get those in a separate tier. Some of the so-called "water civs" are awful even there, like Denmark; others aren't bad at regular maps, like Carthage or England, so those belong in the middle tier.
So, my 4 tiers:
God tier - Ethiopia, Korea, Mayans, Babylon
Water tier - Polynesia, Ottomans
Trash tier - India, Denmark, Greece, Songhai, Egypt, America, Celts
Middle tier - Everything else =P
You could rank the middle tier civs between themselves but that'd be nitpicking IMO.