Okay, right off the bat, I don't want this to be a whiney "oh, I'm spammed by ships, oh I can only with with spam" post.  Lets first face it:  spam exists, and it has a valid place in in the game.  One thing I'm noticing is that people generally seem to feel it is the only really viable tactic.  Find a cheap ship that does well, and spam the crap out of it.

This got me to thinking:  other games have spam as a valid tactic/strategy, but don't seem to suffer from people screaming "SPAM IS TEH HAXORZ!!!!!1!!!111ONEELEVENTY" (aside from the obligatory whiners).  What are these games doing differently?

This got me to thinking about the resource system in Sins.  In fact, this may be part of the root of the issue.  Other games limit your resources in some way.  The traditional way is to render some or all resource of a finite ammount.  This way won't really work in Sins, and to be honest seems like a cop out to me.  I am not a fan of resources suddenly running dry.  There are, however, alternatives.  Here are a couple of potential changes, off the top of my head:

1 - Depleted resources.

This is an easy concept to grasp, and probably not too difficult to implement.  Basically, each asteroid has a certain quantity of its resources.  When that quantity is depleted, rather than going dry (which I think is lame), the resource produces much less than normal over time.  As an example, think of the Vespene Gas in StarCraft (people seem to love StarCraft analogies).  This way, resources don't really run out, but after a while they produce much less than normal.  This also creates a resource crunch in the late game, as protecting every part of your meager income becomes important.

2 - Revamp of the upkeep system.

This is a bit more complex, but stick with me on the discription and I'll try to make it clear.  Right now, when you research an increased fleet capacity you lose resources to upkeep.  This should be changed in two ways.

Firstly so that the upkeep cost is only applied as you fill supply capacity.  For instance:  Right now researching level 4 supply increases your capacity from 550 to 820, and your upkeep cost from from 28% to 38%.  What it SHOULD do cause your upkeep cost to be 38% at 820 supply used.  If your supply used is more than 550, but less than 820 (lets use 685) then your upkeep cost should be between 28% and 38% (for 685 that would be 33%).

Secondly is the concept that upkeep costs should only apply to finished ships.  While a ship is in production, it can take away from your supply, but should not add to upkeep costs until it is complete.  This allows for recovery by a player who just got a massive warship (like a capship) smoked by large numbers of little units (which, as they are lost, do not free up a significant quantity of upkeep).

What is the gist of these ideas (and probably the much better ones that other people can come up with)?  Well, the essence of spam is to continually churn out units as they are lost.  This creates a classic battle of attrition.  The concept of attrition applies to the ability to replace forces for either side, the one who can't replace them fast enough looses.  As spam units tend to be cheap and quick to produce (in relation to other units), this effectivly locks out larger units (which require more time and upkeep to produce, thusly costing you unit space in the attrition battle).

Suggestion 1 reduces resource production over time, causing players to consider whether they want to produce a large number of little ships (which will require them to expend resources to replace) or a small number of large ships (which last longer but take more time to produce).  As long as the cost/reward system is well balanced (slower to produce units giving you more bang for your buck), this can do wonders.  Suggestion 2 allows for players who just got hammered by an attack the ability to recover, as they are no longer paying upkeep on supply they are no longer using.  Since large ships cost more supply than small spammable ones (and thus have their supply lost all at once), this tends to slightly favor the player who is using the more costly units (as little units refund little upkeep before they are replaced).

Anyways, I don't want to see spam be eliminated as a viable method of play.  It has a vital place to play in RTS gaming.  I do think, however, that its drawbacks (every strategy and tactic has a drawback) are probably not sufficient to allow other play styles to currently work as well.

Any other thoughts on improvements to the resource system?