I partly agree with this.
It can definitely get tedious to do the same sorts of things game after game.
On the other hand, Ashes is still an RTS, and the trope of managing construction is pretty well established.
And then again...
I have very gradually been changing my mind that making Ashes good means conforming it to the best parts of other games (like Starcraft II).
The more I have played Ashes, the more I am thinking that the game play feels different in its own right.
And I am starting to think that it makes more sense to let it be its own thing, rather than fight against the idea.
There are definitely places where I think it should/could diverge from the traditional RTS formula.
And yes, one place is building.
I have, for instance, recommended that the metal/gas mining buildings be reduced to a single construct type.
They can certainly still LOOK different on the screen, but there is really no point to having them be two different construct types -- other than the fact that this is what other RTS games have done.
I have likewise contemplated what semi-automation of the building process might look like.
As in, you click a button, and an engineer just automatically goes to build out as many mine/gas thingies as possible.
It's an interesting idea, but definitely poses some problems for me.
Specifically, I worry that something like this might kill the gaminess of the game.
I therefore think the OP is a really interesting question on some level.
I mean, I think that underlying the concern about how to make the game less "samey" are some really interesting questions about what makes a game fun, what is essential to an RTS, and of course, what sort of game Ashes could really become long term.
There is something to be said for Ashes "doing what it does best."
More automation? Maybe.
More AI? Definitely. (I am still seeing too many units that act like dumplings)
