Brazil. I didn't like its inclusion before, since a 'modern civ' seems to be wholly at odds with the entire theme of Civilization (America gets special dispensation only because of its huge influence on global development over the past century), coupled with a series of uniques that both seem a very unimaginative way to treat the new mechanics (how should we show off tourism? Oh, just double it) and seems not to represent anything vaguely Brazilian beyond the name. Brazil really feels as though they designed a generic tourism civ and stuck the name "Brazil" to it to try and grab interest from the Brazilian crowd.
Which brings me to my new reason for disliking it: what it represents for the series, based on the reasoning provided in the "how we decided on these civs" article: as a cynical cash-grab because Brazil's now a big video game market; sure, Firaxis is to blame rather than Brazil, but the fact that Brazil is such a poor fit for the game generally and for the mechanics it's been given makes this crass decision-making all the more obvious. The same justification was provided for Indonesia, and it's disappointing that they used the modern name and city list to cash in on that front as well, but mechanically and thematically Indonesia feels a better fit for the game (and is a civ I've long wanted in even if I'm not thrilled about the implementation).
People really like Portugal the way it was designed, which is quite a surprise for me. A mad queen, a generic UA name in Latin, an evidently uninspired UU, the list goes on. Portugal achieved great culture and impressive deeds, but I feel they are oddly represented.
In fairness, there's nothing very serene about the Venetian UA - lots of UA names are poor fits. Maria was a bad choice and, particularly now we know there are more trade civs in BNW, I'd rather have seen an exploration focus for Portugal (the Nau's +1 movement helps, but it's a poor cousin to England, Denmark or Polynesia if you're looking to it as a naval exploration civ). I'd agree their representation isn't great, but it's somewhat tied to Portugal's history (enough that I feel it works), and well "because Portugal".
The Zulu's they are so played out it's almost insulting the lack of creativity.
The Zulu get a free pass for me for one reason only: They've stopped the "Why aren't the Zulus in the game?" threadspam here...
I don't like the requirement of having other religions in your city to gain the added benefit from the UB.
To me, that's the most interesting element - it's one of the few ways Civ V offers a benefit from having multiple religions in a city (a la Civ IV, which was all about maximising number of religions in a city). It promotes an interesting playstyle and makes use of the trade route mechanic indirectly.
People are also looking at it wrong to think you have to have multiple religions or it's a drawback. It costs 20 production more than a temple, has lower maintenance (and doesn't require a shrine), provides a source of faith for which no other civ has a counterpart (and faith buildings are not that common), and provides 4 faith if you just have a candi and a single religion. Oh yes, and as an afterthought it produces Great People 25% faster, which may become very important with the new tourism-linked Great People. That is huge in its own right, whether or not you play to maximise its effect.
The UU also seems a bit weak.. I mean, how much desert is there on a standard civ map?
Isn't it a lot cheaper than Cavalry? Plus it gets a bonus in friendly territory, not just in desert. It seems a more flexible, cavalry version of Ethiopia's Mehel Seferi, somewhat bland but a rather strong unit. I haven't seen any UUs in the expansion, except possibly the Impi, which are likely to be better (relative to the unit they replace) than Berber Cavalry.
