It's a fun gane, but it's far smaller in scope than FTL, and therefore less replayable. On the surface, Into the Breach's encounters appears to have more going on due to the tactical grid, but in reality the opposite is true. FTL, despite its simple presentation, has much more happening on a moment-to-moment basis. Obviously, ITB's turn-based battles scratch a different itch than FTL's RTwP, but I'm talking about the amount of variables at play.
In FTL, the outcome of a battle can range from damaging the enemy enough that they surrender, destroying them, having to flee or getting a game over. And the first two outcomes can range from complete triumphs to Phyrric victories, and anything in between.
In ITB, you win or you get a game over, and any damage taken is completely restored after every battle, you can never run out of pilots or mechs. The three things that are affected are the power grid, island reputation and the capabilities of your pilots and mechs.
In FTL, the following things are affected: hull integrity, weapons, drones, ship systems, ship augmentations, fuel, scrap, missiles, drone parts, whether your crew survive, the capabilities of your crew and probably even more things that I'm forgetting about. And obviously, FTL's galaxy map and non-combat events allow for far more different ways to progress through the game's content than ITB's straightforward island structure.
Take something like visibility. In ITB you always see everything that's going on. In FTL your sensors can get damaged/hacked, making you lose sight of what's going in your own ship. Conversely, you may or may not be able to see what's going on in the enemy ship if you've upgraded the sensors enough. Nebulas disrupt sensors. There's also cloaking which can render a ship effectively invisible. And that's just one game mechanic out of many that have no equivalent in ITB, like having to repair damaged systems, managing O2 levels, dealing with hacking/ion effects, putting out fires, fighting off boarders, etc.
