Well, on my second game of 0.91 (and yes, I played couple with 0.9 too) with challenging AI on large map with all factions on, I conquered easily all map just with heroes....Was really wierd, had more then 15 cities and was just doing building while conquering the map with 2 heroes (not together), then a stack of doom (with all vassals)...Died once to the AI titan monster (and it hurt: 30 turns of disability! I came back with 2 peons after). Really, wasn't that fun after a while, especially searching for that last faction hidden on a small peninsula. Feels that on the hardest difficulty, it was so easy that....
On the positive:
I like the weapon changes: now every kind of weapon can be ok
I like the new no attributes and hero leveling system (only actives or passives, no more +2 attributes). Still needs some work but clearly on the right way.
Quest works
Graphics are nice
Spells are getting cooler and cooler
On the negative:
Faction differenciation: Well on that part, I can't say factions feel unique....Yes Magnar has slaves, and Tarth (with whom I conquered all map) can wonder around terrain without maluses. But they all have the same spearmen, boarider, axemen etc... I think the changes need to be way deeper: different units/monters for all factions. Like Kraxis could recruit spiders, Magnar draconians, smaller wyvern or ophilians, Tarth bears, wolves, centaurs etc...Right now, it's all about creating the same unit with different blood traits and to admit all, I just need heroes to conquer the map. Right now, all these traits that can be added to a unit are, in my opinion, kind of useless. Factions should be able to do lv 1, lv 3, lv 5 and lv 9 units (unique ones like for ex Magnar: slave (lv.1), Draconian or Basic Warrior (lv.3), Slave master (lv.5), Black dragon (lv.9)) and all with unique traits. That would also prevent the hero stack of doom option: damn that faction is bringing an army of lv 5 (that can still lv to 6, 7 or 8 or even 15)... The lv 5-7 hero won't last long....finally! I really think this should be considered with buildings and research. I also really think it's essential: all great fantasy game in the past delivered unique (graphically-traits-style of play) factions with scaling. A fantasy game needs to be an immersive world with really different play style (elfs are not orcs, undeads are not humans...). Now, that's my biggest problem with the game: if I feel good where are the elves/cleric or whatever that can smithe evil out of the land. If I feel evil, where are these badasses rampaging the world....No I get the same spearmen/axemen/boarider/total armorer whether I am playing imperium or kingdom, whether I am playing Tarth or Magnar....The only time I felt like protecting a unit was when I got an ophilian from some quest. The other units well, they are just spearmen/humanoids with a green or blue tag. And anyways, my hero can crush them all from A to Z, they all mites to me cause they start at lv 1 or 3 while I am lv 15 with crazy weapons.
Cities: Well, I won't blame too much buildings and such. The concept is ok and give some advantages. The problem here is how easy it is to take these cities-outpost. I can roam with one hero and destroy the whole world: militia won't change a thing. Walls need to be implemented like in AOW or some concept like CIV 5 where u need to siege the city before taking it....Right now, I really think cities are just I take u take kinda concept. I hate it when a troop of peons just takes my city backdoor while I take all their holdings in 5 turns: then I actually have to regroup an archer and a warrior to retake that city: yawn... Walls could prevent this. You attack my city? Face archers and balista behind my wall ( you better bring something better then 3 peons). Think AOW style, where 2 archers could guard a city from a small/average army (but not a big one). This needs to be adressed because cities are getting useless map control points: i can lose my capitol to a bd mage army and then retake it (with a lost of pop in the pattern) and I don't even feel it was a hard hit to my empire because I can take it back in one turn (and that it's been 100 turns I just spam bakeries etc in that city)...
Diplomacy right now feels totally bland. It's going somewhat on the right way with trading of research but god: look at paradox titles, even Civ and Total war (sthitty diplo but at least some intrigue, priests etc...)....Here, everything rellies on war. No options to conduct intrigue, or real diplomacy. Frankly, I could live with an overhauled version of this system if the major things were adressed: just call it 3 X.
Final word:
I know it's still a beta and thats the reason why I think it's important to post an opinion, especially as an old gamer. The game has nice concepts like it is now. But they need to be polished and some even revamped to make this title the next generation of fantasy X4 (or 3X?). Right now, it's far from all the major titles that made the genre: Stronghold (yeah that old D and D game with 1992-1993 crazy concepts!), MoM, HoMM2 or 3, AOW serie, and some others. I'll quit comparing this title to Elemental the first: yes it's frankly better. But Elemental was the worst fantasy strategy game that I ever played: everyone knows it, even the developpers. E:FE needs to compare to real titles. Well knowing that AOW:SM was the last amazing title in the fantasy genre (some people still mod this game) and that the genre didn't bring anything great since then, E: FE still has the possibility to do so. Right now, I feel the genre is dying and the coming of E:FE, warlock and indie titles might (and I insist on might) bring other things then marketing to the community. My question is, when I see a great game like Mount and Blade being made by a married couple in Turkey, isn't too much ressources put into the fuss, into the analysis of what worked and what didn't, the marketing etc and not enough into imagination and the final product (do you really think Master of Magic had a marketing team?)? Blah final words 
