First of all I wanted to say that I am really enjoying SINS (notwithstanding the issue noted below).  It is a very ambitious and enjoyable game with addicting gameplay,  and I agree with those who say it's sort of Homeworld meets Civilization.  In any event I think it should keep me occupied until Starcraft 2 is released.  ;o) 

I've played a great many strategy games over the years, and one thing I've noticed in other games and most recently in SINS is that game designers these days seem to love the unlimited resource model.   There are some problems with it however.  I can recall in the good old days of Starcraft and Warcraft 3 that you had to pick and choose carefully your units and upgrades because of the limit on resources.  Although on the face of it the unlimited recource model should be better as it gives you greater freedom of action, I have noticed what I perceive as a problem with it.  That is, if you let the opposition (AI or human) get the edge on you in size and amount of resources collected (even by a narrow margin), then victory becomes very difficult if not impossible.  I can recall when I first played EA's Battle for Middle Earth that you had to move out quickly and occupy the resource points.   If you were slow to do this, then the enemy would occupy them and would eventually be able to send a never ending wave of troops after you.  

With SINS (and for that matter Sid Meier's Civ and Stardock's GalCiv) you have to move out quickly and occupy new planets and asteriods, otherwise the opponent will do so and you're toast.  What's worse, it may take an hour of two of gameplay before this becomes apparent.  In fact this has happened to me several times in SINS.  Of course one problem with rapid expansion is that it leaves yourself vulnerable to overextension, with the consequent strain on your budget and vulnerability to counterattack from barbarians and pirates, to say nothing of the other factions.

Anyway, not to belabor the point, but I think the bottom line with the unlimited resouerces model (and the thing that bugs me the most) is that bigger is always better.  There is no room for small and efficient empires in the paradigm.  Of course I understand that this can probably be offset to an extent in (multiplayer) games with a large number of factions where diplomacy is more likely to come into play.  I still, however, perceive it as a weakness because it can lead to rather linear and repetitive gameplay.   That is, games using this model can easily degenerate into a linear race for the resource points.

Am I wrong?  Love to hear the thoughts of others on this. 

PS.......I like the Advent the best.  They remind me of the Aeon Illuminate from Supreme Commander.  ;o)