Alright, fair point, to an extent: i did overstate the issue when I said that "Sins combat was a non-entity." Sins did have dynamics to its combat, but it's combat wasn't really what I would call fun, probably not what I would call engaging, and absolutely not an ideal fit for a game like Ashes . To be fair to Sin's, it kinda worked in its case for two reasons: 1. the player has other priorities in Sins outside of just "base building" (like the expansive tech tree, diplomacy ect.) and 2. Sins, while pretty in its own way, was not very visually dynamic. By this I mean, ships, outside of fighters anyway, would just sit there and shoot and duke it out and it was relatively boring to look at. Compared to the likes of Homeworld, it was like watching paint drying.
Now Ashes does not have this problem, it's graphics are pretty (outside of some over reliance on hover tanks), it feels dynamic, shots are simulated (I believe?) ect. If you have a game that is pushing the frontier of graphics like this, does it really make sense that it be so abstract/puzzle like? I'd argue that many indie games could do that kind of combat, without having the neat/dynamic engine this game does. Seem like Ashes hasn't found a great way to really take advantage of its engine.
So, Sin's isn't so so much like Ashes, but it is the closest comparison I can think of when it comes to the level of player control over the specifics of combat.
To me, what makes an RTS great, what is really gratifying, is when you feel like you have bested your opponent through cleverness, guile, and maneuvering. In company of heroes it was when you circumvented a well entrenched position to cut your opponents resources or when you you infiltrated a unit behind enemy lines to take out a machine gun so that your main force could come in without being suppressed. In FA, it was things when a player would nuke the charred remains of an experimental spider tank to keep the other player from reclaiming the resources. Stuff like this was what made players feel empowered, and so far, the global abilities, dreadnought experience upgrades just lack the sexiness and thrill that those systems had.
Should Ashes be different? Sure! but when I win a battle against an evenly matched opponent, I want to feel like I out clever-ed him or her, not that I was just better at the games dynamics. Ashes feels a bit to much like a well animated card game at present, and I feel it could really benefit from the more emergent elements I was talking about.
So, in short, The biggest change I hope to see with Ashes, is that it makes me feel clever, and that battlefields feel like places that you can "make your own" rather than places to show your opponent you know the game's mechanics better than they do. I would very much like it if creativity, spontaneity , and risk were better rewarded.
And this is all meant more as a suggestion than as a critique.
Fundamentally, I would like to know, is this game meant to be a heatpounding war of guile and smarts, or a a clinical affair unit shuffling and logistics. I feel like the game hasn't made up its mind on the issue, and this is an identity crisis I would like some clarification on.
