If you polish up the bugs, of which there are plenty, and fix the UI issues, of which there are a few but important ones, you have an excellent game. Mechanics, content, lore/immersion. That the AI needs work with macro strategy is no surprise as the game has continuously changed up until now.

Still can't stand in all the minor tedails about balance all over

So I will vote good, especially with less bugs it will be nice.
Compared to other games. (And not just comparing it to be a game in beta which I voted upon last time).

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Good.  Although I don't feel truly comfortable voting yet, needing more time with yesterdays update.  The base game is brilliant, and shaping up exceptionally fast as we near launch.  A few mechanics could be tied together for a much more cohesive gameplay experience, and the UI definitely needs polish.  Unfortunately these issues and a few outstanding bugs are what the general reviewers are going to notice most, as they contribute to an overall feeling of incompleteness about the game.  First impressions are everything, especially in this industry, and with this particular game.

My opinions come very near those of Heavenfall's.  The game mechanics are very solid.  The presentation is imaginative.  It all holds together well, and the strategy and RPG elements don't fight one another.  I look forward to getting my hands on your modding tools.

I think one important thing to still include would be a pass-not gate to the AIs.  Either a non-aggression pack that also means no trespassing at all, or an auto-notification when it's not being honored, so you can stop it.  I'm more than a bit tired of AIs dropping cities and outposts inside my closed lines, because they can sneak past without my being aware while I'm attending to a dozen other things.  Just my point of view, mind.

I can't vote and won't say.  I will say that I have a long list of things that I hope to try out after release.

The AI will always get better, especially once more players are putting up their strategies because like any game, we get better the more we play.

I also have a long list of UI requests for future updates.  Rally Points, Governors (tied into the path of the governor), etc.  

I noticed in beta 5C that you can now easily go between cities from their context window. Was happy to see that.  I'd like to see it where I can assign units a general strategy to perform in tactical (I like auto resolve but I want a bit more control over how that will go).

It's all very much like Galactic Civilizations II.  Back when we released GalCiv II, I wanted rally points, I wanted asteroid belts, I wanted more AI interaction, more tech tree differentiation, etc.  The success of Galactic Civilizations II paved the way to keep down that path.

We have a rich world here to play with here. I can't way to see what directions we, as a community / development team take it in the years ahead.

One thing I'll say- the better a game, the more I often complain, because going from ok to good really isn't that big of a deal, but going for great to greater is, as the number of comparables keep slipping.

Some of the bugs and balance issues are icky, but even with them, I find myself staying up late playing 'just one more turn'. I voted good, but it is a darn fun game to play.

I have to deduct a few points for losing Umber on the way

But Umber should be one of the main races. THE MAIN RACE actually. Guess they are too cool to be balanced....

still quite a way to go with the betas to be honest:

• Border drawings has a lot of bugs especially if you loose cities
• Heroes might have a slightly more difficult starting, but you can still play without the 4x completely (i am playing a game at the moment where i just run around with my sovereign and my empire does nothing to contribute, i.e. no items bought and no combat units trained)
• monster behavior is really strange, often you can settle next to lairs but sometimes monsters will walk from the other side of the map to destroy one of your cities.
• too much backtracking when questing
• starting positions need much less randomness and food is pointless in the early game (production/essence is much better)
• the ai might be good at the 4x aspect (can not judge) but it is terrible with the rpg aspect of the game (i have a lvl 30 sov, and they have lvl 8 or so) and since the rpg aspect is so much more powerful the ai is a pushover (on challenging)
• lots of early tactical spells are useless (besides just making heroes even more powerful), wheres some late tactical spells make any enemy army obsolete, especially with the amount of items/traits that give +x% spell damage.
• militias are pointless
• experience from monsters is much higher than from armies

i would like to have a testing beta where you remove sovereigns and champions so we could see if the 4x aspect of the game is decent. currently i play a rpg where the only threat/challenge are monsters and wildlands.

I make my own Umber.  And I use the Capitar peoples, Mancers, as my Yoren nation race.  Although I have a hard time not picking Men since they get henchmen.  

Urxen race has that bonus for having groups of 5 or larger.  Not sure if it's useful or not.