I think strategy games in general will be moving that direction...

Sins 2 already has my money if it has a place in existence in the next few years. One suggestion I would like to add to this thread is the inclusion of ships between capital ships and titans. Right now the game is centered around leveling your titan for no fleet can stand against the might of a fully armed and operational level 10 ass ripper. 

I see the disparity between titan and every other ship as a problem (or maybe the whole leveling system itself is the problem [possibly change to module system?]). In homeworld 1 a heavy cruiser was the toughest ship hands down but three destroyers (the number 2 ship) could tame the beast. I know this isn't homeworld but I see a possible enhancement to game play by simply have tier 2 ships that bridge the gap. Thoughts?

I kinda like the titans being end-all ships. Then again I'm used to the idea of titan class ship ripping fleets apart being eve-player m'self. Especially Ragnarov matches my ideal perfectly, decimating stacked fleets with ease or just being a royal pain in the rear for non-titan targets that attempt to close in.

If I could have one thing, it'd be an engine at least on-par with HW2's. Sorry but I need to say that the ship models in this game are my biggest turnoff, and rotating turrets that I'm used on getting from older game(HW2's from 2003 after all!) is one of the causes. I know I know, playing games for graphics is like watching porn for plot and I'll admit - Sins is a terribly good game as it is. I just wish it'd be prettier. Having said that, I'll keep playing even if it looks like it does. Mainly because game-play is up to where I want it to be. Still man has right to dream and I dream of prettier things.

And if the engine were to take benefit from modern hardware (64, ram issues, whatnot) I suspect lag would be eliminated.  Then again I kinda prioritize computer upgrades over... ehm, a lot of things, so I'm not exactly short on hardware. Would be nice to disable the lot of stuff much like in eve-online (Starting from turrets into lower res models maybe?).

I just hope SoaSE2 is as set in stone as you make it sound since I'm really looking forward. Im getting sick of playing older games. And don't get me wrong but I count SoaSE as old. After all Rebellion, where it did add new features, is in essence '06 or '07 game thanks to its engine. I'm not sure if iron 2 could be used for space-game, but still I feel its not quite up-to-snuff when compared to likes of Homeworld-engine, in its 2003 modified state.

Of course I understand the vast difference of scope in games I'm trying to compare, one has a set area and 2nd has multiple solar systems, but I still feel that considering the amount of computing power that we've gained, something like that should be feasible. Then again I don't know much about designing these things so I can be terribly mistaken.

Hmmm.. Doubt it.

Dont get me wrong. I would like it and likely purchase it. But my thoughts are simple.

Why make a Sins 2?

Any answer you can provide can also be given with a completely different game but with a SoaSE attitude and angle. And why not take that approach?

For the barely existing story line it is easier to start clean.

They may be sitting on numerous "should have done" ideas but the tech and abilities are already expected they could not go back.

Soooo much more can be done with a game title <Insert new kewl name> from the makers of Sins of a Solar Empire. ANd give some nice pretty screen shots and vids that remind the core Sins players of the game.

Doing so they can take everything they (the devs) and the fan base love about the game and tweak what was not.

So one could call it Sins 2 as it would be. But IMO it should not. For then we get what we really want.

Given the choice, I'd rather Stardock add better 4X and strategy elements rather than focus on tactical combat. It could be better balanced but Sins has the mechanics for a good combat system. I'd rather not see things like hardpoints get involved, Sins is too large scale for that. A bit more dynamism would be nice, but things like turrets I totally don't care about. Firing arcs I only care about from a modding angle, if they design the ships in Sins 2 as they did in Sins they really don't matter.

Better unit behavior and AI on the other hand I totally agree with.

I haven't played Homeworld 2, but if its anything like other Homeworld games you have much fewer ships flying around. Sins engine is good, but its meant to have as many things in the game as possible. And for that you need to make some sacrifices, from fighters not having shields to static turrets. And I'm totally happy with that trade off. From the screenshots I've seen I don't think HW2 looks that good compared to Sins, at least just from the models. It just seems to have the edge in that the ships feel more real because of details like turret movement.

...cause life is only valuable as an aesthetic phenomenon...

A lot of good ideas here.  As a general observation, I think that the independent players will have a different "short list" vs. the multiplayer community, and based on total sales vs. online multi-playership their requests should probably take precedence if a Sins 2 is ever contemplated/released.

My own personal desire would be to see greater grand tactical control at the fleet level, to the point where battles would require less real time management but would conform to an overall strategy or engagement philosophy without immediate supervision.  Being able to customize initial deployment and engagement parameters (minimum distance, targeting parameters, etc.) either by ship class, or by division/wing, or for a fleet as a whole would be very interesting.  You can try and do that now by grouping ships in separate fleets and then fiddling with them constantly during an engagement, but it's a little clumsy. 

In a game where everything happens simultaneously, it would be useful to be able to order some fleets to fight a more defensive engagement, so that you don't need to flip back to keep them out of trouble while fighting a critical battle somewhere else.

Along similar lines, some sort of prioritization of messaging would be useful.  News of an attack on an important system could be preceded by some sort of a tone to set it apart from the system upgrade announcements.  And messages could be added to announce fleet status deterioration, just to make sure you can keep an eye (or rather, an ear) on multiple systems simultaneously.

Anyway, those are my additions to the other good ideas put forward here.

I don't really like the idea of hardpoints, that is ones that you could target, like on bigger ships in SW:EaW. Those lead to far too much micro management. For the most part, as we have 5 total weapon slots now, that is sufficient when it comes to weaponry IMO. I think that turrets would be a really good addition, not as mere visual eye candy, but as actual turrets; something that bypasses the FRONT/LEFT/RIGHT/BACK bank system entirely. Further, allowing ships to move to ANY bank depending on their total damage in that direction (versus only the front or right), would be nice.

The interesting thing about this post is you don't have to read many posts above yours to see some posts that actively say they do not want some of the things you're hoping for. Ironclad will have a heck of a time deciding where to take Sins II, because us the fans clearly can't agree either...

multiplayer that doesnt suck

It needs a lot more 4X, and a little more Tactical Gameplay. If Sins was to take anything from Homeworld i would take from Homeworld 1. Not from Homeworld 2. I would take Homeworld 1's Tactics, Formations, and 3D movement. Add rotating turrets, ship animations, and firing arcs that were specific, and not general 180 degree arcs. I would make Shields, and Armor weaker in the rear of ships to utilize those features. I would NOT add any subsystems or hardpoints. That would over complicate a game of this scale, and turn it into micro manage hell.

There are not many "new" things left that can be done with a game like this. Original Sins was supposed to have orbiting planets, and an open universe travel system (aka no phase lanes). However the dev's felt it hurt gameplay more than it helped. They can keep the phase lane system, but only to stars, and each gravity well can have a true "solar system" in it. Something like what Sword of the Stars 2 has. Or what Original Sins was intended to be, but in a "Local Scale".

I think more focus should be on the 4X element. We have plenty of "Expand, and Exterminate". There needs to be much more "Explore, and Exploit". More Diplomacy. Espionage. Etc. The Defenders can use to be revamped a little. Perhaps into full blown NPC factions in themselves. That have their own unique traits, or ability's. That you can negotiate treaty's with, Ally, or Conquer if you wish. Random space events (Monsters, Menaces, or Environment hazards) would add a lot to Sins. Along with the Pirates. Dealing with all can give experience to ships.

Ground Warfare can consist of specific troop transports that you must use to take over a world. Along with planet bombers, and colony ships The planet bombing is only effective to a point, but you must bring in ground forces in to "mop up", and garrison. This can be shown as an ability similar to Planet Mania (animations of ground troops fighting above the planet). Once won the planet is yours, but you cant do a damn thing with it until you bring a colony ship. The colonizers bring in civilians for building new infrastructure.

an

I completely agree with all of this, especially the parts about Homeworldesque tactical gameplay, as ship movement and general micromanagement of larger group of ships can get really messy sometimes (i always felt way more under control of battles on HW, the units, even while moving more than on Sins, were easier to recognize and select, on SoaSE its sometimes incredible clusterfuck...) and then the 4X part (yay for NPC minor races and all those menaces,  monsters and old left-over tech kind of stuff... but please, do not overcomplicate it to become way too management-like, i would prefer Sins with more content, not Sins with more gameplay mechanics...)

Just one thing, i would keep the current phase-lane system, as its IMHO working very well, i would just make the gravwells bigger to allow for that tactical combat. 

The other things, i always felt it would be cool, if you could zoom onto the planet so close, that at the maximum it would kinda automatically "flip" and move the camera through the clouds and show you nicely animated city/colony. You know, like in the old 4X games, Pax Imperia Eminent Domain comes to mind.

Something looking like this, just in motion:

and you could watch it turning into this during bombardment:

 This would have basically no influence on actual gameplay, just pure eye candy. The city could perhaps change/grow as the population will grow and it would be great to watch it especially during orbital bombarding - to see it burning and going down, and then see those planetary invasion dropships to land etc... then zooming back would take you back to orbit/actual gameplay area... while technically pointless, it would IMHO add lot of character to the game. How many times are just bored during bombardment phase, waiting for it to be finished, so you can proceed with next steps - this could shorten the waiting and give you at least bit of that feeling, you are actually conquering unique world, not 15th generic planet. 

Like visible achievements for defeating this "Unknown Enemy" that buff your faction. Kinda like kill marks on a fighter. Sounds good.

I think the goal is to add on to Sins without over doing it, or going way over the top. Sword of the Stars 2 is the shining example of over doing, and over complicating things that we need to avoid at all costs. SoTS 2 is the extreme opposite of Sins. It has a lot more, and very complex 4X, but very little tactical gameplay.

It is the Little things that can add a great deal to the game without turning it into a "Chore, or Grind" to play. The most important thing is to keep it Fun.