I suppose this goes for any American leader, but I am currently working w/ Roosevelt.

Is it really worthwhile to try for a conquest victory with no UU or UB, as they both arrive in the Modern Era? As far as a space or cultural victory, Roosevelt seems dominant, but I question his ability to dominate early on. Thoughts?

In every conquest victory I have played I have always done the bulk of the warfare in the Modern Era. And for that they are awesome. No need to stop for healing, great on the attack vs almost anything. And no need to worry about placement vs rivers. (actually it benefits you to place so you attack over rivers). And since they are Marine replacements, great for the first hit on another continent.

NAvy seals are the best unit for late game intercontinental assaults, so if playing hemispheres and continent maps America has an edge for domination wins.

The UB is not that late (earlier than the Russian, German, Japanese) if done right. You simply need physics/electricity/refridgeration and the path can open supercondutors for another +25% bonus building. A UB that provide +20% gold, extra happiness from late game wonders, and extra food and health is pretty damned good but the usual tech thought process needs to be altered a bit. Also the Mall gives you great advantages with Corps (even more than the English Stock Exchange). This applies to all three Americans.

Roosevelt has big advantages in being ORG (to support a large empire) and IND (best leader to build the Great Lighthouse and fast forges) during the game, both of which help finance early warfare. IND also helps to build the late game wonders (broadway/RR/Hollywood) too who's benefits are magnified with the UB, thus war weariness can be addressed by excessive happiness allowing you to keep US and representation while fighting late wars.

As far a choice of victory, well any leader is played correctly can win anyway they want. Gandhi can get domination wins, Shaka can win culturally, and Monty can go to space.

There's 5 parts to every game (in no particular order):
1. Leader traits - Roosevelt is pretty good there
2. UU - late, but good if you need it
3. UB - late, but decent
4. map - some maps are better than others
5. you

Sure, having good traits, a good UU, and a good UB can really help you win, but you don't need a UU and UB, or good traits, to win any sort of victory. Any leader can dominate early if you have good skill and a favourable map.

Sure, having good traits, a good UU, and a good UB can really help you win, but you don't need a UU and UB, or good traits, to win any sort of victory.

Speak for yourself! :mischief:

But seriously, that's a good point. I'm just looking for the scenario where he might be most effective. I just won a cultural game with him, where he was quite dominant, but it occurred to me that much of the effort I put into culture points, could be applied elsewhere.

Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ　ｉｓ　ｗｅａｋ　ｉｍｏ，　ｍａｙｂｅ　ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ　ｏｆ　Ｉ　ｒａｒｅｌｙ　ｌｉｖ ｅ　ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ　ｔｏ　ｍｏｄｅｒｎ　ｅｒａ :)

You do not necessarily need an early UU or military traits - enough siege usually does the trick.

Asoka doesn't even have a military UU and he used to be my favourite leader for warmongering: ORG to make conquests affordable, SPI to get from a war to a peace/recovery footing and back effortlessly and to forge alliances. I simply found I could push my empire harder with him than with anyone else.

Roosevelt has IND instead od SPI, not really a warmonger trait but something you can work with. An Oracle/MC slingshot for cheap forges can give you a production advantage and trade bait, failure cash from wonders can keep your economy afloat, a faster Heroic Epic certaily doesn't hurt, and if there's enough water the Great Lighthouse - which you can get more easily than anyone else - pays for unlimited comquest.
He is not necessarily the leader I'd pick if I decide to take over the world before seeing my start, but certainly not hopeless.

Navy Seals also aren't bad for finishing the job.