If you enjoy turn based games and/or complex RTS go buy this game now.

I've heard good things about this game. I am considering it. I have also heard good things about Universe at War: Earth Assault. It seems solar empire seems to get a little bit of higher marks all around, though the concept of Universe At war looks a little bit more like my kind of rts (Dawn of war or Starcraft style). How much turn based micromanaging is there in this game? Do you build individual units or do your colonies produce units for you?

Not much micro thankfully. Right now I'm at the 3rd (out of 8 or 10) levels of fleet capacity and that a lots me around 1000 ships in total capacity. I could not imagine the amount of korean blood I would need to drink in order to micro a fleet of 1000 ships much less anything larger. You produce everything you care to colonies only provide funding. Also I did a quick google and found that universe at was exists on the 360. I here by discredit its ability to compete on ANY level with Sins. This completely real time btw, it's just on a much larger scale.

Universe at War: Earth Assault is a PC title, however its epic fail is that you have to pay for the Microsoft Live Gold account in order to play online. This means 50$ a year to play online, which is more than enough to keep me away from it. Its a shame because it looks like a really good RTS.

Yes but it exists on the 360.
http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product_id=B200331A
Thus it has the console aids. That shit about paying for online is also crap.

Just because a game exists on a console doesn't make it bad. In fact the game itself looks really pretty good. It looks very similar to Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, which was an excellent RTS on all accounts. However, the fact that you have to pay for online kills it for me. They screwed that one right in the pooch. If I had a hex-box however, and was already paying for their dimwitted online service, i most certainly would pick that title up.

RTS + Console = bad (note C&C 64, warcraft on the playstation and starcraft 64).
Only way to make it "not bad" would be to design the controls with a gamepad in mind as opposed to a mouse+keyboard. This simplification of control is what makes it's existence on the PC degraded.

Well... normally I would agree with you except that... its an RTS and you can usually play an entire RTS with nothing but your mouse. Sure the keyboard adds hotkeys, but gameplay is point and click, so I don't think that the simplification of controls really applies here.

Console RTS are bad for the reason that you don't have a mouse to point and click and you don't have a keyboard for hotkeys. This makes gameplay slow and clumsy, but only on the console. They said for this particular title on the console version there is a special menu for building units. The interface for the PC port however is just like any other RTS interface, build menus and whatnot.

Sins does look really good, but there is no single player campaign?

You can play an RTS with nothing more than a mouse, yes. I would never consider doing so. It's far too painfully inefficient slugging through the interfaces that way. Compounding this problem is the fact that a joystick is not a mouse. It has nowhere near the same precision or speed. I, for one, will pass, thank you very much.

That's very true, as why I would never play an RTS on a console, but as I stated before, Universe at War: Earth Assualt is a PC title. In fact, it hasn't even been ported to the xbox 360 yet. It won't be available on the 360 until march.

That being said, of the 2 games I think Sins looks more involved and is probably the better game, if for no other reason the outrageous online fee for Universe at war (50$ a year). However I must say both titles do interest me, I do so love giant walker mechs of destruction.

*edit*
I bought sins earlier today, I have to say I am impressed by the amount of automated micro and the simplification of menus. Looks like an impressive game so far, though I really wish there were some kind of campaign for it.

Ya the lack of any real story is a downer. If we get a few more jiggly regulars to buy it we'll have to start up a multiplayer match
Also in regards to universe at war, I would be more concerned about the speed of the gameplay. The joystick as mentioned is a horrid control for RTS, not just for building but also moving around the map, selecting units, and the like. TO accommodate this, I can only imagine the combat being made rather slugish so as to not alienate new players to the game (and it is a console game, noobs are the market).

so upon further review, I like the game a good deal however 2 things still bother me about it. Not surprisingly, it feels a bit like homeworld 2 but much better.

1. The lack of a progressive single player campaign, thats really 70% of the appeal of strategies for me. I know that the random games last hours, but I still like to feel story progression and technology development through a campaign. They did add acheivments to the game which kind of give the feel of game progression, but not really.

2. I've been having a hell of a time trying to get the multiplayer to cooporate. It seems that every time I try to host a game it tells me i am behind a firewall and people won't be able to join. I set up port forwarding but it didn't seem to do anything (as it so rarely does).

Is your windows firewall on?

No, I almost never keep the windows firewall on. I am really bad at this game, almost... discouragingly bad. I guess I need to learn a bit more about what's going on, because right now I'm still having camera issues.