Ok, thanks for your point of view. I guess that was intended for a hero focusing

I also don't think you should make traits incompatible - they all cost points, and if you want to focus on hero recruiting and take 2 supporting traits (while losing out on, say magic specialization or income boosts) then you should be able to do so.

There will always be some traits that fit a certain playing style more than others, and trying to achieve the perfect balance usually results in perfect boredom - as with all RPGs or RPG-hybrids, you can choose to power-play (i.e. try to find the best combo for winning and max it out) or role-play (which is how I play - generate a sovereign that you enjoy playing with and try to win the game with their range of skills and limitations).

I would not expect a game to introduce artificial limits to avoid power-playing... those players who wish to power-play are free to do so, jeopardising their enjoyment of the game in order to win more easily...

I've tried off and on running Natural Leader and Betrayers, together.  Yes, you do get a ruler focused on acquiring champions, but you also end up losing options for other possible traits.  It's not super powerful--in fact, it's pretty hamstrung, since you have to run up the magic tech tree to grab the various heroes techs--if you don't, the combo is ineffective--and that takes time from the main civ tech tree, which is easily the most powerful of the three.

But that aside, what's wrong with having combs that are extremely powerful?  Nothing at all.  All combos don't need to be exquisitely balanced, just as the game level and opponent levels don't need to be the same.  If someone wants to play a combo that gives them an edge over certain AIs, that's their business.  Want to play Tarth against several customizations of Proserpine on a small map, while minimizing magical power?  That's your choice.  The option to do so shouldn't be removed.