It looks like you are observing what I am observing.  Monster hp should be up a bit.  I don't think my brand-new sovereign should be able to take on 2-3 bandits solo.

I don't know what changes were made to that build, but what I generally do is:

Start with sov until I find a champ, recruit him and then gather as many goody huts as possible while killing monsters. I have a question here: I usually go in a single group with the premise that the exp per monster is the same regardless of whether I'm alone or not. But going in group, I think, has the advantage of not losing any potential experience and, at the same time, being able to face stronger monsters. Is that correct? Anyway, once the level ups start coming, If available, I choose the +exp ones over the rest, to make the xp gain as efficient as possible.

In the meantime, while my sov and hero/s are busy roaming around and gathering stuff, completing quests and killing monsters, I'm usually building growth and production infrastructure. And researching anything to take advantage of the resources nearby ASAP (mining, channeling, etc.).

After that I pop out pioneers and start making outposts and cities. My sov/hero stack is usually already strong enough to face stronger monsters or some AI.

As for enchants, yes, I think they are very important to have the AI use them. I try to enchant all my units with everything possible, but if I'm afraid I'll be short on mana, I then prioritize protective enchantments to a designated tank (usually my sov!) leaving the rest unbuffed. The AI likes to attack their closest target.

Oh, and I DEFINITELLY agree on making the powerful artifacts (but also powerful units) come from difficult monsters/quests.

Suggestion:

New concept: prestige classes.  Require lvl 8 and a path skill.

Have classes like swordsmaster, barbarian, mediator, ranger- attached to the various paths.  These paths should give the real bonuses. 

Defender/Warrior/Assassin need to be buffed, Governor should use non-combat buffs (Krax's diplomat ability should be in path of the governor by default possibly), Mage doesn't really need nerfing except for evoker.

Evoker needs to be nerfed hard.  Dirge of Ceresa+ Evoker III= Ceresa can nuke anything in the game one-shot that isn't a dragon-class monster.

As for the magic items, maybe they should be just a tiny bit better then regular items, but give a + something per level?

Maybe the AI should be taking unit counts into account when deciding on spells?

Few units on own side -> use buffs and summons.

Many units on own side, few on enemy side -> debuffs and direct damage.

Already does.

As well as determining the value of each unit and how easy to kill those units would be through other means versus how much extra mana they have and how much mana they are producing per turn (to determine how wasteful they can be).

It's interesting, and I'd love to see that in a mod.  But Stardock's in late beta, tweaking existing things out.

I think this approach might work best, in that it finesses by degree better than, say, an early game AI multiplier, or an instruction based on point in the game. 

On the stoneskin thing: I'd like to think (and actually suspect) that there is more of a holistic strategy to game balance than this, and that decisions aren't made simply on these kind of anecdotal experiences.

But more than this: we all broadly agree that spells should get more powerful as you get more shards and your caster improves his abilities. We also agree that we don't want to have spells that are simply "greater fireball," because it seems like lazy duplication. But these principles actually clash, because the mana cost of this powerful, scaled spell is still the same as it was when it was it was weak, while the mana cost of your new spells are high. Or to put it another way, why would i cast my new, shiny Touch of Entropy for a tonne of magicka, when Flame Dart does comparable damage for much less? Or, to use a more relevant example, is it fair that a master earth mage with a ton of shards can cast stoneskin and have a godlike defence in the late game, whilst still only paying 1 mana maint for the privelege?

What's more, it's not clear from the descriptions which spells are scaled by the caster's spell power, and in what way. This is very "under the hood," and not how stardock usually designs it's mechanics.

D&D does this quite well in my opinion. It has scaling, but it is of a limited nature. There are still higher level spells that are much better generally (and scale themselves).

So basically, what I'm saying is, the game needs to be consistent in how shards and spell power increase the efffects of spells. It needs to effect slow spells as much as fireballs. But more importantly, it needs to clearly explain how it is doing so. And though I like scaling, I also think the game would be better and easier to balance if spells scaled less (like, max double or triple of basic power) and there was a "greater fireball" for the late game. Shards shouldn't allow you to own a dragon with a flame dart (though they should keep them effective): they should allow you to cast epic magic like curgen's inferno etc.

The current fireball spell is a great (bad) example of this: it does comparable damage to a flame dart given the same shards and spell power (maybe slightly less i think?), but effects a larger area. But it costs much more mana. And it has a longer casting time and could effect my allies (making it tactically much more cumbersome). So once i looked at it I realised it was almost always better to cast a couple of flame darts. Sure, you've decided that since fireball is a bigger and more impressive spell it should have a longer casting time and higher mana costs, and that's fine. But if this game was being designed by the D&D guys they would have (and did, to the fireball spell in their own game) give it higher damage than the lower level spells.

Hope this doesn't sound to ranty or bossy, I just suspect it hasn't been thought about in this way.

Opinion: Level 1 champion shouldn’t be able to take out a black widow. Suggestion, Stone skin should do +4 defense plus +4 per earth shard.

I'd suggest to instead increase the downside of Stone Skin. Make it reduce Initiative by -2. Or increase the maintenance cost to 2/season.

I'm curious.  What do you mean by this?

Is the spell-decision system based on XML values, or does the AI actually try the spells out to see how much of an effect they have? Maybe it could just try to see how much damage the spell does on average, or how much it changes stats etc if it doesn't do that already... XML-value based AI feels like artificial-non-intelligence to me...

Funny, I would rather see them in a "leadership" position, so it weren't so beneficial to bup them together lategame.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

How much damage the spell does is known to the AI via the XML.  When you play, don't use select items and spells based on what they say they'll do? That's what the AI does.

What i like to do in early game is build 2 pioneers and a milita.

while they are building i explore around my city and pick what loot i can.

The militia tanks for my sovereign and the 1 hero i can recruit in the first few turns.

I like to play with life 2 so i get the healing spell and i can usually find a hero with water 1 for meditation for immediate city spam to generate mana if i have no shards around me.

This group of 3 units sov, hero , militia gives me the time i need to level them up on monsters and build troops with traits once i get some research and resources unlocked.

my 2 pioneers will grab resources unless i find a high grain or high materials location.

then i go into build mode in my main city and get tier 1 and 2 civ tech to boost it as much as possible. My second city will be a troop producing city.

Generally i find food more important than materials because population adds material production over time and generates your gold and research. A high materials location but low food is only good for pumping out troops - especially if its near a river.

Other than that, my choice of civ tech, war tech and magic tech depends on my local resources.

I do want to try a game avoiding war tech and using the troops generated by civ tech supported by the magic tech  troops, but you need a good starting location for that event to happen.

I was wondering about the early-game-multiplier you mentioned in the original post. That felt like basing decisions not on how the spells play but on XML multipliers, and got me curious about how the system works. Another issue which got me curious was that I saw (in 0.90) the AI repeatedly try to cast different spells on a magic-resistant unit. That seemed like it wasn't actually checking the effect of the spell "in real life".

Just interested in this stuff, that is why I am asking...

Fireball... FIREBALLL!!!!

well your probably wouldnt have won, but you would make a good god damn mess of his pioneers and scouts/spearmen .

Besides, he have no casters or ranged, (well he had buffers), but you could have stayed back and blasted (run to the back of the combat map), also depending on your fireshards, fireball his infantry or firedart his heroes (lots of fire shards = fire darts)

PS: whats wrong with that screencast, it only says there is 1 "lord markin" on the opposing team
Edit: Some "idiot" cant read

Sincerely
~ Kongdej