I'd go with the first option. While it's not very original, it addresses a core problem in the game. If the strategy is still viable, I'm sure you (and the dev's) will see a few things that just shouldn't happen and need fixing.

Your second option is not bad, but I'd rate the balance issues with one or two races as a lot less important than how overpowered heroes are.

Curious as to how you finish wiping out everyone by turn 100 all the time...

Small map?

I play on normal map and, while I don't aggressively push my enemy right away, it still takes me to turn 200 to pull a win...

No, all of the playthroughs have been on a large map.  I play very aggressively, and unless house rules prevent me, my sovereigns are designed as self-buffing fighters.  Even when I could not use heroes, my troops were exploitative to the point where they went through juggernauts without losing hps, let alone units.

That said, Stardock have been quite good at slowing down the game, and removing exploits.  The lack of regeneration in combat will go a long way toward slowing down my expansion.  I am personally leaning towards the second option.

But, Xia and GFireflyE, if you are curious how I play in the first 100 turns, why don't you read the playthroughs?  I think that my strategy is quite clear in all of them, and most of what I did in the .98 one it is even applicable to the last version (except for the lack of regeneration)

I think the playthroughs are sort of pointless until they fix the AI not being able to see us or each other bug.  Come Thursday, I'm all in!  Maybe you should create a saved game for us all to play and see how everybody ends up.

That's an interesting idea.

Save a game at some point early on, and give people 30-50 turns and see where they end

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

If there's a new version coming out, there's not much point in starting a full blown play through.  I'm writing those in the hopes that we'll learn something that's worth changing/improving/balancing, so I stop them when there's a new version out.  I think I'll just start a game with standard Resoln and a custom sovereign, and see how fast the game progresses.

As for intentionally crippling a custom race with Wraith blood, what is the point? It's easy to come up with really bad choices, for example taking "No Ranged" and "Master Archers", or the corruption book with a Kingdom.  I always prefer when my challenge comes from the AI levels and the home rules.

And sure, I could keep a few saves along the way.  It will be easier to do better if one has watched the play through, of course - one will know where the good stuff is.

I couldn't make it work, but its probably a good idea if he can

Its a different approach to the home rules part, running a hero faction but with wraith or pariden bloodline, and no master scouts is way harder than going say krax, men, or trogs and with master scouts and something like enchanters, its a suggestion, take it or leave it

Its a good idea with waiting, and I am still happy you provide insight to unit tactics ETC. also because you are better at presenting it than I am

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

How about playing with no magic paths and no wealthy?

I play without magic paths and without wealthy all the time.  The only thing that I am getting from this is that taking wealthy and magic paths for essence spells gives a strong early game boost.  So what are you proving now?  I think that using any race with that build will work and it proves nothing.  Play something that you haven't already proven to be op.  Wealthy is, we got it.  Picking certain magic paths for their city spells is, we got that.  Don't think that will really change with another race, thought you might want to really challenge yourself.

Do we want the game to be balanced for stupid choices?

I think it is rather silly to have have a magicless sovereign, especially when you do not have "Enchanters".  I also do not think that city boosters need to be nerfed.  What needs to be done is to have them balanced. 

And no, I do not think that the developers have yet gotten exactly how unbalancing "Wealthy" is.  I see them nerfing "Adventurer's Boon" from 10 hp to 8hp, which is a laughable adjustment, so I'm pretty sure that if they had gotten the message about "Wealthy", they would have done something about it.  1150 is way too much gold to start with, and I fully intend to demonstrate it in this play through. 

As for a challenge, that's what the difficulty level is.  If you are telling me that you are winning with a magicless sovereign on Insane, I'd be surprised, but I will still believe you, because I have gone solo with a Life only sovereign on Insane.  But I hardly see what that would bring to the Beta testing process.  Everyone has understood that there is a problem with hero balance, and the developers are clearly trying to adjust them.

You are not quite understanding that I want this playthrough to be useful to the tuning of the game.  If I play Resoln without magic boosting my cities, and without wealthy, and I lose, the results will be meaningless, because the setup is clearly inferior. 

Ah, now I can't wait to start.

Kraxis is pretty much the only default nation I play as.  Wealthy, betrayed, defensive, are among my favorite things to use.  One handed spears, leather armor and bronze shields in a five man group make for a very good early unit with the Kraxis fortify. 

Ok, I promise that my next playthrough, once the next version is released, will be standard Karavox on Ridiculous.

By the way, Insane is a HUGE jump from Ridiculous.  I have never won on Insane in any way but "All out heroes"... which is rather easy with Altar, Gilden and Tarth.  I believe that I could win with troops only on Insane with a Krax based custom race, but I may or may not be able to win with standard Kraxis.