I think all of these ideas are legitimate and, if implemented correctly, could make combat a great deal more enjoyable. The only one I would be concerned about is formations; basically, setting certain formations would provoke counter formations from your opponent, which in turn would probably drive you to counter their counter in a vicious cycle, and handling all that could be more micro-intensive than the game seems intended to be.
I think I've said it elsewhere in this forum, but I have seen the devs take a pretty hard line against micro, and while I totally get where they are coming from (this game would be unmanageable if microing units a la StarCraft was allowed/desirable) I think they have to include dynamics that allow for a (limited) degree of micro. As it stands, combat decisions are limited to what units you send, where you are sending them, if they are grouped, and what global abilities you drop in conjunction with them. Of all those factors, only the global abilities really add any sense that combat is spontaneous or dynamic.
I very much like the game's scale, and the pacing of skirmishes, and the focus on strategy over tactics, but, as of now anyway, combat just feels like a function of production. I very much see the value of limiting micro, but, this is an RTS game. Combat should be one of the main draws to the game, and the game doesn't really allow you any significant degree of choice, personality, or interesting options with combat. Setting a stance for an army, or giving it some kind of conditional order, could go a long way towards making combat more enjoyable. Basically, I want anything that will make me feel that I am given multiple viable options for combat, and that those options allow for some degree of self expression, as weird as that might sound.
So there are many conceivable ways to remedy this, but almost all of the ones I can think of would involve a balancing act of adding more micro to the game without making army management a clickfest/APM contest.
One of the more specific ideas I have involves the kind of units should be added to the game. So far, the units that have been added post beta, while welcomed haven't really added substantial new dynamics to the game. In the future, I would love to see units, possibly t4/experimental units, that have a weapon management, or power allocation system all their own. Just as an idea say a t4 unit that allows players to adjust its weapon facing within an army (and takes a good deal of time to align once given orders). Or a unit that can be given power allocation orders that allows it to switch between different modes of operation.
I think another thing this game's combat could benefit from, and I assume this might be a bit contentious, would be an added degree of chaos. This game explicitly takes cues from Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander, but I haven't seen the chaotic elements of those games really show up here, which is regrettable. For instance, in supcom a giant flying saucer would, when its hp was depleted, destroy any units that happened to be under it when it came crashing down. It would be nice to see stuff like this show up and Ashes, and I think the devs could even add some devious elements of their own. Say for instance a t2 ground unit that plows through and destabilizes formations. Or perhaps, they could change orbital nullifiers so that there is a certain range where their ability to block is dubious: if you try and call in an incursion force perhaps some of them could materialize in a rock face or even into an enemy factory. Just spit balling, I'm not married to any of these ideas, lol. As it stands, combat just seems too antiseptic and clean and it really doesn't seem to take full advantage of what the engine is capable of.
