Granted, we beta testers have only tested individual elements of E:WoM and not the entire game -- that surely would have been a great help to the development team. Be that as it may, from my experience with what I can see shortly before release, here is a brief list of the things I think need most urgent improving, and some concrete suggestions on how to improve. Please feel free to comment and add!

With the exception of Pacing (below), I think all three areas I name are strongly interrelated to one another, so that addressing one will simultaneously have a synergetic effect on all three.

1. Unit Creation. The units we can train in our own factions still seem too similar to each other, too un-individual. I often have a sinking GC2 feeling: Lasers I get replaced with Lasers II, etc. This is different in some other notable (good) games, such as Dominions or Civilization, where the units have a different "feel" from one another and the player senses a notable, not merely cosmetic (graphical) or superficial difference.

Suggestion 1: Let there be trainable Special Abilities available to standard faction units, and these Special Abilities can be unlocked with the attainment of certain technologies or combinations of technologies. Example 1: "Crushing Blow". A melee unit may learn this ability; doing so causes the unit to require more training time and/or gold/resources. The unit must be wielding a Bludgeoning weapon. Technology prerequisites: Bludgeoning, Advanced Melee. Mechanics: Unit may activiate this special ability from a radial menu if it has a valid target; when activated, next attack suffers -1 attack, unit suffers -1 defense for next round, and if attack succeeds, it does +2 damage and has a 75% chance to stun the target for 1-2 combat rounds; has a cooldown of 4 rounds.

Suggestion 2: Let certain of the Special Abilities be unlockable and addable to a unit's repetoire as a bonus for becoming a veteran (gathering enough XP) if certain technological prerequisites are met.

2. Combat. Surely this area is one of the key areas our input into a full "demo"-like version of the game would have helped most. Any input we can give would be surely enhanced greatly by the ability to have access to as much information as possible, e.g. actual testing of all elements and more information; as it is, I am still unsure as to what the mechanics involved actually are, e.g. where and by what degree to random rolls come into play? How exactly does Morale work? How exactly are hits and damage calculated?

What I can see now does not feel fulfilling.

Suggestion 1: Initiative. Granted full transparency of the combat mechanics, let combat rounds be broken down into phases by which certain types of actions are performed in order, thus giving a tactical advantage and disadvantage to each type of action and action prerequisite. Example: Short, light weapon-wielders get to attack before heavier weapon-wielders, all things being equal; these may cause less damage, but have an initiative advantage. Additional initiative boni granted by higher dexterity, itself a prerequisite for wielding some weapons as well as affecting combat speed.

Suggestion 2: more tactically-activatable Special Abilities, also for mundane units, as above in Unit Creation.  This would give us more "choices" in combat. Other examples of this could be as simple as: Activate Defensive Stance (for all units); Activate Shield Wall (for shield-bearers); Activate Called Shot (for ranged units), Activate Crippling Blow (melee units), each with its advantages and disadvantages.  

Suggestion 3: Perhaps this is already implemented, I cannot see: Unit characteristics can be enhanced by learnable Traits, which affect the ability to counter-attack and block incoming strikes.

Suggestion 4: More weapon abilities, also for natural weapons (claws, etc.), e.g. boni for counter-attacking, riposting, or causing special effects (stun, poison, magical effects, magical damage, disease, wounds, armor damage, etc.).

3. Technology. As I mentioned in Unit Creation, I think the tech tree, while a great improvement on the one we saw in GC2, is still too streamlined. The five paths of research have, IMO, far too predictable outcomes (compared to, for example, Dominions). In some ways, the five paths remind me something of Lasers, Diplomacy, Shields, Engines, and Construction, albeit somewhat randomized.

Suggestion: Let there be interesting cross-path breakthroughs, so that some Abilities are gained which are not tied to one or even two particular technologies. In other words, I would leave the tech tree as it is, for the most part -- at least the general structure -- but de-couple certain interesting Abilities (making interesting buildings, learning interesting spells, creating different types of equipment, special activated abilities such as Stealth, etc. etc.) from one specific technological breakthrough.

4. Pacing. The beta version I can play shortly before release feels, in many stretches, empty. Surely this is also due to a as of yet suboptimal AI, but part of it is due to a lack of continuous polyvalent choices with which I am confronted.

Suggestion 1: To help alleviate lulls caused by buttressing a strong "turtle" position, allow for more incursions of neutral parties by which a tradeoff appears to be offered: the risk of some capital (military force, resources, zone control, mana) for a potential gain (e.g. a Djinn et al. offers a deal) in time if Quest is successful, or to fend off a foe.

Suggestion 2: Enable Sneaky AI and alternative Victory Points / Victory Conditions as an option.

Suggestion 3: Highly flexible and customizable Game Setup screens, by which players can not only change the pacings of individual temporal settings (e.g. how long buildings need to be built, units need to be trained, and tech needs to be researched) as well as how often random events take place, but also how and whether special customized Victory Conditions are utilized and including how random the rolls are in combat, e.g. from very random to not random. 

Thank you in advance.