I think it's a pretty good balance of the two, actually. I HATE most RTS games simply because they rely too much on 'twitch' play and micromanagement. GalCiv 2 is one of my favorite games of all time, along with MOO and MOO2, and MoM, simply because these games allow me time to think things through. However, the slow pace sometimes annoys me, as I find myself simply clicking the 'end turn' button over and over again waiting for a ship to arrive somewhere, be built, etc.

Sins is great because it's slow enough that you can take some time to micro without too much pressure, but things are always moving along, no endless clicking. Granted, expanded diplomacy would be fantastic, but I usually let my guns do the talking anyway.

I admit to massive suckage at both types of games, I have no hope of EVER beating a single AI on hard, much less 3. Normal is tough enough for me.

To the OP, I'm sorry you don't enjoy the game as much as I and many others do. Saying as much without outright putting it down as a piece of crap is very noble of you, although I do think you should have gone into more detail initially. This company listens to its customer base, after all.

For me, Sins is a much more satisfying game experience than the other 4X and RTS games i've played. Although, i confess to not being an avid strategy gamer. The main reason i didn't like the bulk of the strategy games out there was the overwhelming amounts of micromanagement that seemed to persist from game to game.

Sins is, at least for me, a welcome break from all that. I greatly enjoy having my fleets not behave stupidly without constant babysitting on my part.

I agree that the tech tree is not as rich as say, Masters of Orion 2, but, i'm hoping an expansion will make improvements in this regard later.

The whole "debate" about weather or not Sins is a "true" 4X game or not is lost on me. Who fucking cares? All that should matter is if it's fun to play.

Its even shorter.

Not sure that's a fair comparison. The Civ IV techs tend to be relatively unique, whereas here we have Improved Laser I (2 levels), Improved Laser II (2 levels), Improved Hit Points I (2 levels), Improved Hit Points II (2 levels), etc...

Now I'm not saying that's bad, per se... but regardless of the numerical 'size' of the Sins tech tree, the relatively small number of 'unique' technologies makes it feel smaller.

This guy hit the nail on the head. The tech tree isn't tiny in that you've researched the whole thing in a matter of minutes, it's that other than a few techs, you can win the endgame without researching the whole tree, although it will be a bit more difficult, with superior strategy. I'm not saying you can't do that in another 4X game, but lets take Galciv II for instance, your ships won't stand a chance against endgame ships unless you have researched close to the endgame techs, no matter what weapon/defense combo you use (compared to his). In sins however, you can, as long as you research a few select ability/unit techs. You don't need any of those weapon techs to win if your strategy is better. This is what makes the tech tree small.

Sins is no "deeper" or more complicated a game than most traditional RTS games. Most techs in the Sins tree are just incremental upgrades to damage, shields, resource gathering and so forth. The number of different units, special abilities, amounts of colonies (in MP games of practical length) etc. are also comparable.

The innovations come from pace and, partially, scale. The game is so slow that chatting, plotting and strategizing come naturally; there's really not that much other stuff to do when you're not micromanaging battles.

Please don't get me wrong here, I like Sins a lot. A game doesn't need to be complex to be good. Accessibility is a great feature, and Sins has the potential to become a "melting pot" of sorts for players looking for a wide variety of experiences. Currently, mid-large FFA or team games can be very entertaining in Sins, and after some tweaks it might also become a viable competitive game on small 1vs1 or 2vs2 maps.