The problem with trying to compare this game to the "current" crop of RTS games is, most of them fall into the same category of what I call unfinished, they each have different reasons on why though.
If all the current RTS games are unfinished by your criteria then I think it is you, and not the game that has the issue.
Supreme Commander, since you keep using it for a comparison, had a fully voiced, three branch story, which ended in a pretty massive map.
And shipped with multiplayer essentially broken.
The other flaw is a lack of high scale depth. There's not a lot here to justify playing a larger game. We only have orbitals for strategic weaponry, bigger, higher resource maps wont make the game more expansive. They'll basically come down to spamming even more generators to orbital strike the shit out of each other and ramp up the monotonous research system.
Could this not be said of every RTS? SupCom has nuke spam. StarCraft has endless complaints of MMM spam. People who debate World War II argue the Americans won through Sherman spam.
That isn't to say that Ashes shouldn't continue to evolve to become a richer strategy experience. I'm just saying that these particular criticisms mostly argue that this particular game isn't your cup of tea.
I'm not asking for shield bubbles and strategic artillery, but the layers of counters are what made the game great, and those layers were there for release, I blew through the campaign when the game came out, it was awesome, and infuriating, to set up an epic defensive line only to have a spider bot blow away the entire thing and wipe my base because I didn't have anything to counter it. The all encompassing orbital nullifier just doesn't cut the mustard. We don't even have a rapid transport mechanism.
And Supreme Commander lost millions of dollars and GPG is gone.
The days of the $20 million RTS game are long long gone. Ashes doesn't have the scope of SupCom did because it had 1/7th its budget. But that doesn't mean it's not finished. It just means that it will take time and money for Ashes to evolve into whatever it is to become over the next several years.
This is the way new PC-only games used to be made and now, with the fall of retail, this is how they are once again being made with the exception of console ports and long-standing franchises.
Ashes, in it's current form, will simply redefine engine design. There's not enough depth for me to lose a week of sleep over it.
And that's fine. But it doesn't mean the game is unfinished. You just don't like it.
If you want it to be the go-to RTS, you're going to have to evolve it past it's predecessors first. The potential is there, but right now it's only potential, far outstripped potential. It's unpolished, which is expected from companies other than Blizzard, but it's more than just unpolished. I've probably forgotten more interesting games, which depresses the hell out of me, because I was really hoping you guys would break the mold again and redefine how I saw games. It really needed to release with huge maps, and enough strategic depth to validate them. If it had, the campaign would probably be forgiven in 90+ review scores. If the campaign was a standard setter as well, you'd be in line for game of the year awards and hit the #1 seller spot on Steam.
Unfortunately, if we had shipped a game as you describe, we'd be talking about massive layoffs because no PC game can justify the budget you speak of to deliver the ideal game you speak of.
The basic problem in this discussion is that you are assuming we lack the imagination or design capability to deliver this ideal game you want.
Double the Ashes budget and I would have given you 3 distinct races, each with 7 unique air units, transports, naval, 4 tiers, each with 5 to 7 units each with not just more economic depth but with artifacts, harvesting (including wrecks), resource processing (turning 1 resource into another), etc.
But we can't because the PC market can't deliver the customer base to that genre given the hardware specs a modern RTS requires. That's the part people ignore.
Let me give you one example: You want truly ridiculously sized maps? For us, it's a variable we could set. But even with our very large maps (which are as big in terms of land area as SupCom maps and we have actual 3D terrain) we barely fit in GB of video memory. Even slightly bigger maps would require an I7 with 4GB of memory to play well unless we totally gimped the terrain for everyone.
There's no scenario where a new RTS IP is going to be the #1 best seller (other than maybe a day or two). Real-time game engines are hard to make and a modern one, just like SupCom back in the day, has hardware requirements that are pretty far beyond the average PC user.