The whole slow down thing is not seen in any similar RTS as far as I know. Even CoH which has a suppression mechanic allows the player to hit retreat and back out real fast. But that mechanic would be crazy in a game like this with its scale and unit numbers. I noticed a lot of the devs worked on Civ4 and 5 which have area of control (forget the proper term) for units just like many tbs games. I am guessing the influence is coming from them/that. It works in tbs but tbs and rts are totally different beasts.  

It would be great if the Devs could really go into the decision for the 25% speed for combat. I really hope it is still up in the air. I could see why one person compared it to gratuitous space battles. You literally cannot retreat, it's crazy.  

I hate sounding harsh but I really hope this gets looked at again.

Retreat is an essential command when used in tactical situations. Historically retreat has helped commanders turn the tide of battle. Retreat does not have to be slow, and in fact some units may even move slightly faster, unless the retreating units are returning fire as they are retreating. It has kind of irritated me over the years that no RTS game really has this.

A hotkey to select all visible units is a great idea also as MnMShow mentioned above.

Which reminds me, is this game missing the standard "Select all same units across the board/onscreen" shortcut or am I just an idiot and missed the obvious? 

Yeah I know that one and it doesn't always work like it should, besides it is not easy to double click aicraft. I was looking for a keyboard shortcut. In some games if you hit "E" it selects every unit of that type on screen and if you hit "E" twice rapidly then it selects all same units on the entire map.

It is all good. It is hard to tell the slightly experienced RTS gamers from the noobs. The double click function is one of the most common commands across just about all RTS games.

Having the ability to set key bindings would be awesome. They could program more commands into the system with the possibility to bind them to specific keys. I have a K95 keyboard and being able to use those 18 programmable keys would be awesome. Then again my G13 is technically easier to use than those keys, but I barely use that these days.

They mention in one of their blogs somewhere that this is not a rehash of your favorite RTS and they do not want suggestions to make it that way. But there are so many good ideas in other RTS games that would be awesome if implemented into this game.

They could implement an option to include tactical commands or not. This would add another level of game play to what can be the most epic RTS ever made. 

AotS is headed in that direction with the scale of the battles going on. If they can mix that style of game play with some tactical commands and a few other things AotS would be an epic RTS. 

One of the things I have wished for since C&C Generals: Zero Hour was the idea of world spanning campaigns. Where you would have a few places to establish bases and build things up then have to send out battle groups to make more bases to eventually control the entire planet. You would have to take resources from each base to support the bases on the fringe but still maintain their defenses along with maintaining the area they control. I also liked the way Battle for Middle Earth did it where units could gain rank and continue to follow you throughout the game. 

Stuff like that would this game epic to me, what would make it epic to you?

I also agree that combat slowdown has to go because there have been too many times where my forces get slaughtered by base defenses while they are crawling away.

Also, I think there are a couple of mechanics related to unit movement that could add a lot to the game. I'd like to see a "get in formation" button that would make units move to a location and form up in a logical sense (artillery in back, protect the dreadnaught, etc.). Also, there should be options for the type of formation you want to make. Sometimes you want a wider or narrower formation, or maybe convex/concave. Maybe make options to tune the formation for attack/defense. Any new units that join the metagroup would find a place in the formation. Additionally, there could be an option to break formation while maintaining the metagroup. Units in formation would move at the speed of the slowest unit in order to maintain formation and units not in formation would move as quickly as possible. It could also be possible to modify the shape of the formation in combat so that your units can continue facing the enemy and firing while moving around (I'm thinking I could make my metagroup more concave to flank an enemy or come together more if the enemy is about to break through my front line somewhere). Maybe there could be an option to make units move more quickly but have reduced armor (or slower but have increased armor). Obviously, this would be an ambitious system to code (well) but it would be really cool and if done right it would add a lot of strategy while reducing micro.

I think that the maps have too many narrow passages as well. It really limits the practical size of an army, especially when units don't move efficiently through constrictions. Obviously, narrow passages should exist but I'd also like to be able to have grand battles with huge front lines. There should be maps with few constrictions as well as maps with many constrictions.

Lastly, I'd like to be able to include engineers in a metagroup and have an option for them to automatically build resource collectors. I feel like micromanaging a fleet of engineers as I rapidly take over territories in early game doesn't add to the game mechanics and really penalized low APM players, since it's pretty obvious that I want to build more collectors as fast as I can. But I think it should still be necessary to dispatch engineers because there's some strategy in where/how many you send and the enemy can target your engineers to slow you down.

That's all for now! What do you guys think?

IMHO I don't agree because I have seen first hand in game server management certain teams or group players would do this to certain innocent players who either cant play well or the one being bullied.

The Devs need to serious consider this b4 implementing and how it will be used. The Quitting function should not discriminate players in multiplayer option of the game

Is that working for you?  I have been unable to make this work so I thought it was not fully implemented.

Yes it works. T2 units can do it too. Queueing units this way creates a kind of build order queue that gets filled on demand by available factories. The new units automatically become part of the battle group upon spawning, catch up to the dreadnought, then get into formation to do their duty. Pretty awesome way to keep your groups stocked with units. Ideally the empire tree would do a better job of making it obvious how many of each unit is already in the group so we can quickly determine which reinforcements we want to request.

Here are things that need work. It will queue units at factories on the other side of the map. Not so good if you tend to make forward bases all over like I do. Also if the unit gets queued in a factory already on a repeat queue, the factory queue will retain that unit request in its queue indefinitely and subsequent units spawn ungrouped and not really wanted.

I'm going to tease a bit:

SupCom wasn't unconstrined. First, it had a unit limit. Ashes doesn't.  Second, you had to endlessly build energy.  In fact, the FIRST thing you build are a couple of energy producers.

In Ashes, you have logistics which are basically the same thing.  Except, of course, we don't hard code limit the # of units.