As far as the UA goes I think it's mostly a fine idea so long as civilizing mission can capture uniques like old Rome can so that the fun of that particular mechanic is preserved. Especially, captured military citystates being able to gift unique units is a pretty interesting concept similar to that of stealing other civ's buildings, and would be good so long as there was some UI indication of what units the captured city state will gift so you don't need to memorize or write it down before conquering it.
I think the villa is pretty poor in concept and far less interesting than the colosseum because of how it overlaps with villages so heavily and it seems a lot weaker and less interesting that the colosseum. More GG/GA's made sense for Rome being one of the few warmonger civs without direct combat enhancements because it rewards skillful warring with more capacity for warring (through extra unit cap, golden age production/culture, and more +15% among a growing army), instead of making it easier at the get-go like it is for the Zulu's or Sweden. I'd have to test the food in capital and how powerful it is but it has the appearance of being an overall nerf to Rome, and personally I think it should be reserved for a mod civilization so that the fun had from GG/GA/GAP spam isn't preserved in hero worship alone.
My main issue however is the fact that the new UA and new UI serve to shoehorn Rome into fealty by removing any viability or potential synergy with statecraft and artistry. The UA takes any utility of statecraft away, while the lack of the coliseum removes any reason for rome to take artisty while the addition of the of the villa's food bonus and pasture/farm synergies seem to thrust rome into fealty-only. Removing policy viability will only make the civilization less interesting and less replayable (even more so given that Rome has little reason not to go Authority/Imperialism in the first place.)
I think the villa is pretty poor in concept and far less interesting than the colosseum because of how it overlaps with villages so heavily and it seems a lot weaker and less interesting that the colosseum. More GG/GA's made sense for Rome being one of the few warmonger civs without direct combat enhancements because it rewards skillful warring with more capacity for warring (through extra unit cap, golden age production/culture, and more +15% among a growing army), instead of making it easier at the get-go like it is for the Zulu's or Sweden. I'd have to test the food in capital and how powerful it is but it has the appearance of being an overall nerf to Rome, and personally I think it should be reserved for a mod civilization so that the fun had from GG/GA/GAP spam isn't preserved in hero worship alone.
My main issue however is the fact that the new UA and new UI serve to shoehorn Rome into fealty by removing any viability or potential synergy with statecraft and artistry. The UA takes any utility of statecraft away, while the lack of the coliseum removes any reason for rome to take artisty while the addition of the of the villa's food bonus and pasture/farm synergies seem to thrust rome into fealty-only. Removing policy viability will only make the civilization less interesting and less replayable (even more so given that Rome has little reason not to go Authority/Imperialism in the first place.)