Got pre-gold release, looks quite good. Since this is pre-gold, I won't be suggesting any new features, just small issues that kept bugging me. Had to post it here, since it has mixed stuff that would otherwise go to several different threads. All right, this is going to be a large post...
First of all, there goes unit naming. Though TR has significantly improved over time, some units still bear illogical or clumsy names; some of those have been around for quite a long time. First of all, there's still lots of units with national adjectives, resulting in "Persian persian foot knight" or even "Ottoman mongolian archer" (!) in-game. Then, there are some logical inconsistencies with naming and/or appearance of several units. So, some naming suggestions, as two lists for these issues, respectively. First is regarding naming. Keep in mind, that the problem can also be solved by reverting a unit to a generic name (like "Arabian Longbowman" -> "Longbowman"). What I'm offering is just striving for some more flavour. Most of the more ethnic names can be verified by a simple wikipedia search.
Arabian Longbowman/Pikeman -> Saracen Longbowman/Pikeman (can also rename respective swordsman)
Arabian Spearman -> Desert Spearman? (since saracens weren't around yet)
Baneret (English) -> Man-at-arms or Norman Knight (to leave banneret for French)
Chinese Archer -> Qin Archer
Chinese Junk -> Seagoing Junk
English Longbowman -> Welsh/Yeoman Longbowman
German Axeman -> Saxe Axeman
Indian Archer/Axeman/Spearman -> Mauryan? (really no idea on this one)
Indian War Elephant -> strangely enough, has to stay - I guess, Indian Elephant is just a species name
Mali Cavalry -> Mandinka/Seré (generally, word "cavalry" should be avoided, as "Cavalry" is industrial-era unit)
Persian Foot Knight -> really dunno
Persian Horse Archer -> Daha(e) Horse Archer
Persian Knight -> maybe some heavy cataphract stuff?
Roman Cavalry -> Equites (see Mali Cavalry above)
Romanum Legionarius -> just Legionarius, he'll be Roman all right
Spanish Longbow/Pike -> Castillian/Iberian Longbow/Pike
Zulu Archer -> Tribal Archer
Mongolian Archer -> Steppe Archer (this guy also features with Ottos)
Now for logical list.
Anglo Axeman -> Anglosaxon Axeman might suit him (it was anglosaxon invasion, after all)
Black Knight -> why? It has bothered me as along as he was around. France wasn't famous for her Black Knights (as wasn't any other country)
Cannon (China) -> Hand Cannon
Cataphract (Western) -> the guy is armored right, but Western Europe didn't use cataphracts. He might be armored rider or something.
Cataphract (Rus/Otto) -> cataphracts are supposed to be heavily armored, IIRC. This guy makes me sorry for him, as he has absolutely no armor. I'm not even sure why he needs copper/iron. And he certainly can't be called "cataphract" (Greek - "armor clad").
Cataphract (Mali/Zulu) -> same stuff.
Cataphract (Mongol) -> could be used for Ottos. Could be called steppe rider.
Hussite Maceman -> why?! Hussites were prominent only in Bohemia (maybe Poland), and Germans actually fought
against those guys. Could be a good Bohemian UU, if we had the civ.
Phalanx -> Hoplite; phalanx is a formation that any pikemen can take.
Spanish Spearman/Swordsman -> don't you guys think they look too medieval to feature in ancient/classical eras?
Spearman Legionary - no such thing existed. They can be called Auxilia, or Auxilia Spearman.
Zulu Knight -> once more on the armor issue.
Scythian Axeman -> firstly, scythians were much more known as horsemen, secondly, associating Scythia with Russia is a bit strange. He might be Varangian Axeman. BTW, Druzhina looks quite strange.
And now, to some more generic observations. Compared to vanill, unit XP and culture are much more abundant. When we talk XP, there are now many ways to produce hardy veterans without actually fighting. It is quite easy (taken some determination) to whip out frest units with more than 10 XP even if you are not aggressive. I'm not sure if I like it. It surely makes for more varied armies with specialized units and stuff, but it seems to devaluate the very idea of gaining combat experience. Still, I'm not sure if I like or dislike that.
As with culture, I have to say I'm more negative on this. Back in vanilla, if you didn't work to promote your culture, you got no culture (if you're not creative). This is no longer the case, as I sadly found out - even a freshly captured or built city will get +3
(more than most buildings give) if you just have open borders and tech exchange. And +25%
with monuments - don't. Maybe leave it for obelisks, this way egyptians get a very decent UB.
Those two coupled together result in less difference between civs: aggressive civs have less of a military edge (as their bonus becomes less valuable when experience is more abundant), and peaceful civs are less successful at culturally dominating even their most barbaric neighbors, as they are guaranteed to have more culture than before even if they don't put any effort into it.
Phew. That's about it. I can also add that I like the way TR progresses very much. It closely resembles what I'd do to Civ 4 were I determined to make a personal mod (and what I did to Civ 3 back then). Great work guys. Keep it up.
. "Na" means "On" and "zdrowie" is "health".So you can make it out your self 
