Germany's mix makes my head hurt. They have an ancient UA, pointing to a time well before anyone had serious thoughts of Germany being unified under any banner (Rome was more interested in holding off the tribes there than conquering land at such a cost), a medieval UU...Prussia was much more important than "Germany" at that point. At least the leader is logical, but the Germany from which the Panzer UU comes is just so totally different that it could almost be considered a different civ (turn of the century Germany and WWII Germany are probably AT LEAST as different as Rome and Byzantium).
That being said I guess Germany has a lot more working together there, whereas India does not.
Anyway, they do a decent enough job of not showing too much overlap. The Celts could very seriously get nearly every city in Europe. Only Rome could ever claim to dominate the land as they did, and Rome could take every Greek and Egyptian city, as Carthage could get a nice chunk of Spain.
However, they do a pretty good job of not putting the same city in the game more than once. It does sometimes lead to strange situations (particularly with the Celts and Romans, due to the sheer size of the area they controlled), but they made some very hard choices that turned out being quite respectable.
With India's UA specifically, it's actually pretty awesome, I think, but it's strong only later and hurts for those vital early turns, but my issue with it is that it's really a war UA, favoring a tall start and then expansion when happiness permits, and due to the nature of the UA, if you can take already decent sized cities, all the better. India really needs a peaceful UA...
