I'd say this argument is mostly dead, and in Kronos' defense, he has said this is just an idea to entertain.  I do have to agree with the general consensus that the main thing stopping this is computer hardware (and not being 64-bit compatible, grr).  Just for the heck of it, I went into the custom map in Diplomacy with all my mods turned off and tried to see if I could create a 100 star map.  I got tired of clicking when the number of planets in the map reached 1000 though, at 6 planets a star, that's 166 stars, roughly.  I clicked preview and after a minute or two of loading, it started up.  I am unaware of any cap on the size of maps placed in the software itself.  You can go click to add new stars a billion times if you want a real galaxy, but if your computer cannot compute such a vast amount of information (with the 32-bit OS limitations) then what's the point?  Many people are begging for 64-bit support for this very reason, large maps with lots of players, and being able to use all of the super duper hardware they have accumulated and scraped together.

On another note, I am just curious as to why having 500 planets across a dozen stars is not enough?  (if it is, ignore me, haha, but...)  Realistically, we don't know of any planets that could support life out there in space, not to my knowledge anyway.  I won't say we can't eventually find some, I personally doubt this, but I'm open to the possibility given sufficient proof.  But, obviously this is not a game totally based on reality, for good reason, would not be as much fun!  But, my point is, who is not to say that "small" maps are actually small (and I do not consider 500 planets small, being a Civil Engineer with a solid concept of mass, that is a LOT).

Another note, you would need to drastically increase the limits set for fleet size for maps of significant size.  Frankly, I'd rather see bigger fleets than bigger galaxies.  But with the game mechanics as they are this would be hard to balance I think?  What I have in mind is, rather than have a "fleet upkeep" percentage at each fleet level, each ship itself has a flat upkeep cost that increases with your technology level (i.e. better lasers are more expensive to both build and maintain).  It would be a realistic upkeep system that could be used to run a persistent universe, but I think that is beyond the scope of this game.  Sins seems rather pointedly aimed at these "small" to fairly large scale battles with a very streamlined system.  I've never played it, or really looked into it much, actually... but GalCiv, another game by Stardock, may have more of this "conquer the galaxy" idea you are pursuing.

That is my opinion though, I have a hard enough time on small maps and I have a really cruddy computer.  I can see how others might enjoy games that take so long they may as well be in a persistent universe.  But I think this is a case where idealism and practicality collide.  You COULD have a million stars with hundreds of planets on each and run this on a computer the size of a small car.  But would that even be fun?  Honestly?  (you can say yes, I just can't imagine enjoying it myself... then again, I tried EVE for a day and could not get even slightly interested)  I mean, this is coming from the guy who posted here about massive graphics upgrades.  I mean, ideally, if I could zoom in and see people walking around inside my ships, I'd probably explode with joy.  But even more "basic" upgrades are too much for most systems to handle and thus, the developers who have to keep the wider audience in mind have to limit what they can put into the game.

Oh my goodness I just wrote a book!  To think, was just going to post a sentence or two...

Trust me, your post is nuthin' on the scale of long posts. And I'd know, I've written some borderline dissertations on these forums.

same.  just ask me about phase missles.  ill spend hours writing a post.

edit:nvm.  ill just link you to my posts about phase missles that took hours to write.

So Pbhead, what is your take on phase missiles? (That's right, I dare you, I double dare you!)

So rebellion will be all about multiplayer and will have no single player games to play? Did I get that correctly from this thread?

If there is one thing you can do, Whiskey, it is write, and write a lot in a scholarly manner.

This ought to be fun, Pbhead.

Shurdus, no one is saying there won't be single player, just not a complete campaign anytime soon.

Ok, here is the 'issue' with your first couple of posts: If by 'not rendering the room your not in', you mean dont render the solar systems you havent discovered yet, I dont think theres much of an issue. Sure the computer opponents are doing stuff over there, but thats easy to simulate and not render. However, when you do discover that area, you still have to render the old area, so now the overall area is bigger, and you run into the system's limitation (which is hardly ever the graphics. In FPS's, graphics are usually the limiting factor, in RTS's [including sins] it's the CPU).

Now, if the game were broken into sectors, you could maybe get around this, but you'd have to completely remove everything from the old sector when you move on, essentially starting from scratch. And yes, you would steam-roll the competition in the new sectors if you were allowed to keep your fleet from the old one. so all in all, what you've proposed is essentially either something you can do right now /w current sins, or a way to start a new game with the fleet from an old game in order to have a massive advantage.

On the other hand, I could see a 'challenge' mode being implemented. Like, your given certain resources and have to beat an opponent with them. Say, heres 20 scouts, how do you beat this opponent with just those? Like the training missions on crack.

Exactly, challenges would be great, but a fully developed campaign simply just isn't going to happen any time soon.