I don’t even know if key personnel in the organisation read it - and if they did, I think they simply saw it as 1-turn Nasty-killer builds, not win-game in 1 turn builds.
On the Council forum, I’ve asked UV to bring it to their attention, along with the big debate we all had about alpha-strikes, where everyone’s (mcarver200 & MadSkunky’s as well as Voland and mine) opinion was represented.
Let’s see what happens.
That’s not correct at all.
But our analytics at the moment is showing us that most missions last at least 5 turns (both sides). So it wasn’t that we weren’t aware of these powerful synergies, just that our data is showing that not everyone uses them.
Heh, read @VOLAND’s posts.
It takes 1 turn to kill everything worth killing and 4 turns to mop up the stragglers.
May I answer this question too? And will mix things tha Voland mentions here:
For me Phoenix Point is also great in first few battles we have. Geoscape is big unknown, we have only basic constructions in base, only few items are available, soldiers are not so strong, we need to scout the map slowly and enemies are dangerous but still beatable, missions are mostly there where we go and not where the game will decide we need to be.
Geoscape:
In my mind geoscape should let us travel really far and fast, but to discover all we would need a lot more time. Missions which spawn should be optional, and we should be able to select which ones are more profitable for us. There should be a lot more things to do. Manage inventories, manage ships, manage bases, divide research and manufacturing between different bases according to needs, engage in diplomatic events happening between factions.
Progression:
There in the strategic part also goes managing soldier progression. This should be long. Your first squads should be fully trained just few months before game ends. And if you are player who tends to fast run the game then your soldiers won’t even progress to that max level. Still that max level shouldn’t create supersoldier capable of annihilating anything that stands on his way. He should just have range of possibilies to react in different scenarios to deal damage and to be able to retreat to better positions, or even change the way he is dealing with an enemy. Research should unlock a lot of informations about unknown enemy, new tech weapons should provide different ways of dealing with enemies (not outright better than previous ones), new armors should counter different attacks not be just better than previous ones. We should expand base possibilies not just by +20% power from generator, +20% faster manufacturing or anything like that. Well those modifiest could be applied but in more intricated ways rather than application of global research everywhere.
Combats:
Of course as @MichaelIgnotus mentioned with 2 or more soldiers we should be able to alpha-strike one or two key opponents, but after that combat should slow down, be more of a different approaches and options rather than raw increase of damage output. We have small maps, so weapons should have unnatural dispersion (high innacuracy as for their expected performance), perception should not let you spot most of the enemies in first few turns, stealth should became common attribute for not-durable units, thus also speed of units should be decreased to not make low perception and accuracy obsolete. better armors should give protection for at least few turns of exchange of gunfire. Night missions and alien base missions should be scary thus perception and many items/attack properties should change.
Other things mentioned by Voland:
Difficulty should really differ between different difficulty levels. But to obtain that I would not change any item properties or ability modifiers. Lower difficulties should provide less alien attacks, those attacks should be weaker in terms of haven destruction and in enemy units available during the missions. Mission rewards could be higher on lower difficulties. Alien could progress slower and I mean evolution not the ODI counter. Also cost of new soldiers and new equipment could be lowered. But overall performance of a soldier should stay the same on easy and on insane difficulty.
Realism should be kept where it is possible, but when there is need to keep balance under control just forget about realism. So no fancy turbo skills in the first place, no soldier jumps from 3rd floor to the ground just to flank an enemy, no aircartf flying around the globe like the bees in the garden, no teleportation of items and soldiers to the other side of the glove (or even continent).
Pace should let you marvel soldier progression and expanse on the geoscape, combats should take long enough to become memorable, not a clickfest of few turns where you don’t even care who is the opponent and how many of them are there. But game should allow to finish it before we will even be close to researching everything / manufacturing every bit of the arsenal / discovering everything on the geoscape and maxing out our soldiers.
^^ This, i like your mentions 
For me it is very clear:
If you don’t get this massive problem under control, you will lose casual gamers and veterans. Both are extremely important, as @NoStas said: casual gamers (the majority), veterans (free PR, streamers, guide writers, ANALYTICAL REVIEW WRITERS)
Sorry snapshot, I only want to help and we can only help if we address the problem, even if the truth is unpleasant.
I honestly doubt the value of stats in this case, because it is possible that:
As I said, it can take any number of turns for mop up, or do other things, like paralyzing.
Some players learn how to alpha-strike sooner than others, and some just don’t. For example, from reading on the forums it seems like there are players who don’t like dual classing and just avoid it.
Once players learn how to alpha-strike, they do it for a while until they get bored and then perhaps they stop playing altogether, start playing with self restrictions, or keep starting a new game and quitting after hitting midgame.
I don’t want to be the guy teaching a grandmother how to suck eggs, but IMO stats might work for figuring out what tactics/strategies players are using, but this really being an exploit other factors come into play.
For example, do the analytics show all the players with a Lvl7 Technician on their team casting electric reinforcement twice and then recovery every turn? Why not? It’s clearly the optimal “strategy” and there is no reason at all not to use it every single turn. Yet probably you don’t see it that much because many players who know of this exploit purposefully avoid it.
I think I am the kind of player that UnstableVoltage says they are seeing in their statistics. I tend to play defense first and only make a small alpha-strike when needed. That’s because my game style isn’t to cheese the exploits, but to have fun taking my time and to minimize casualties.
I haven’t watched too many YouTube videos of folks playing PP. However, I recently viewed one (just checked it out to refresh myself on the mission type so I could pick the right squad). This player did the most insane ultra-alpha-strike. Combos of frenzy, dash, quick-aim, rapid clearance, etc. It was so insane, I didn’t even bother finishing it. I guess he enjoyed it, but I would never ever play like that. I see no need to and it certainly isn’t my play style.
While, I don’t have any fixed rules to limit my abilities and skills as some do, my play style does it for me. I view my game style to the game of Go and not a chess match on speed. For my play style, I sometimes find it hard to agree with the extreme requests to limit this and that. It’s not that I don’t agree that they can be abused, I just don’t abuse them, and in so doing, find the battles rewarding.
No brainer = No tactics
And this absolutely broken skill has been mentioned very often here in the forum!
Perhaps not in all cases, but there are times when it’s very necessary (and I don’t feel guilty for using it when needed). I am not going to not use a battle tool that I earned, just because using pea-shooters would more challenging than calling in a strategic drone/artillery strike. If I am facing a ton of acid lobbing Pandorans or explosive abdomen Chirons, you be your behind that I am going to use every tool I have to stay in the fight and win (because that’s the name of the game).
One wonder if their statistics are as finely meshed to include what is used against what enemies and/or placements of all units. I let the situation dictate and what tools I need to use to survive.
I see no reason to use it if it’s not needed, as this takes a unit out of the offense. There is a built in penalty if one abuses it (spend all action points to recharge).
Perhaps ‘First-turn strike’? FTS? I mean, the Terminator, or alpha-strike killers (min-maxed builds with optimal third row skills) builds certainly help, but they are not necessary.
For this, others become invulnerable! Isn’t that a reason? especially if you do aggressive alpha strike?
Oops, I broke my rule not to answer you anymore. Couldn’t hold me back right now. No offense …
LOL 4APs for invulnerability for the whole squad? =No brainer.
Of course. So what’s the point of having armed enemies in the game at all if it’s up to you as the player to decide whether they will do any damage to you, or not?
In PP you can play GOD 
Well put BTW, though of course I disagree with your conclusion.
@UnstableVoltage This is exactly the point I’m making about stats and why they are ineffective at showing and detecting exploits, because players themselves exercise some degree of selfcontrol to keep their gaming experience fun.
And, as I said, I don’t aggressively alpha-strike.
Just curious, have you seen the stats or are privy to exactly how they are used?
This is my only source of information:
By that I mean that the tech cannot be used for anything (remote control, firing, overwatch, etc.) And even double electric reinforcement does not necessarily make the whole squad invulnerable. They can still take damage from many enemies.