You know, had you dug into the tech trees some more you would have noticed that they really are quite different. Not "slightly", but very. TEC get trade ports at Civics 2, while the Vasari get it at 5 (well, 5ish... I'm not a Vasari player). And if you want something more than just "rearranging" things, notice that Vasari have seperate weapon techs for the frigates and capitols... or that the TEC are the only ones with more than "basic" economy techs... Or lets look at Insurgency Vs Returning Armada! Or that Advent "free XP" research, or their extra "cap" on allegiance... or... or...

Same thing goes for the races in general -- if you look, they really are quite different.

Congratulations on your condescending reply pointing out something I already know and acknowledge. You have to acknowledge the fact that the units and tech trees of the factions have far more similarities than they have differences. Most RTS games will have some differences in the units and tech of each faction, but they will follow a basic pattern and they will be similar with equivalent (if not identical) tech and units for each faction. In this game we have our scout frigate, light frigate, attack frigate, anti-fighter frigate, siege frigate and colony frigate etc. While the cruisers and capitals vary more in their abilities and roles, they all follow one template and pretty much all units will have a counterpart in the fleet of another race.

I'm talking about a completely different template, factions that have next to nothing in common with any other faction.

Pffbt. Not common factions don't tend to be universal to games at all. The Total Annhilation series never followed it, nor do most RTS games. Quite frankly the only games I can think of with wholly different factions are Starcraft, Warcraft III, Warhammer,Dragonshard, Command & Conquer Generals/Tiberium wars and possibly Company of heroes (Although they do indeed have unit equivelancies.)

Asking for asymmetric factions is quite frankly, unusual. Most games simply don't have them. Also, there are almost no turn based strategy or 4x games that have remotely asymmetric factions- most have the same faction with slight differences and cosmetic upgrades,

I partly agree with the OP.
True, the basic setup of all races is the same. Same ship types, same research types. The differences here are really minor.
However I find it very interesting how these minor differences have a huge impact on gameplay.

Trade tech tier 4 instead of tear 2, doesn't seem like a big difference at first.
But in a multiplayer game when the enemy is pushing towards you those two research tiers will cost you the money equivalent of a dozen frigates which you enemy will then have more then you when he comes ringing your planetary doorbell. So by altering the placement in the research tree the factions really play different.

Also, small alteration in the ships themselves have quite an impact on the gameplay: Illuminator damage typ and range makes them quite different from e.g. Javelins.

On top of that there are the race specific specialties: Capital ships abilities and support cruisers make a huge difference, as well as (in the lategame) the higher tier race specific techs (TEC unlimited money tech or phase gates for example).

In the end it wasn't really so different with StarCraft: What was Protoss vs Zerg else then altered numbers (Zerglings vs Zealots for example, same unit type but with different stats) with mostly the special abilities standing out (Templar Psi Storm for example) and a few higher tier special units (Reaver, Defiler, Carrier etc).

There never has been a game were all races are really completly different. They all need the basic attacker units and all that.
Sins makes the mistake of clearly showing these similarities. The similar units are in the same places in the building queue and also in similar tech research fields.

I'd say if IC had made the Destra Cruisader for example a little weaker and the Illuminator a little stronger but switched their position in the tech tree and also in the build menu, nobody would notice the strong similarity to other races units.

Having all ships in the same build menu spot for the races and even having the same capital ship themes in the same build spots makes the game look less diverse then it actually is.

wtf i bught dis game teh other nite and im pISSED AS HEIL cuz all 3 factins gotz ships i mean wtf why shuld TEC hav guns and Vaseri have guns it dont make sense dats alot of cretivity (NOT LOLOL)

Remember: Every game can be picked and knicked apart.

rofl The sarcasm is to much.

Of course if I didn't appreciate this game I wouldn't be playing.

Nope. Phase Missiles are their core weapons branch, which benefits everything. Apart from that, Pulse Guns only benefit frigates(not including Assailant) and support cruisers and Pulse Beams ONLY buff capital ships. Wave Cannons also boost the weapons only on capital ships and the Enforcer heavy cruiser.

Similarly, the Advent have Lasers and Beams which together constitute their core weapons(used on everything), but their Plasma tech only benefits capital ships and the Crusader heavy cruiser.

The TEC, though, has it's weapons spread out with Autocannon techs boosting some weapon systems and Missile techs boosting others, and Lasers for the smaller weapons. It's a mishmash for the TEC.

doesn't even affect 1/3rd of the damage of most cap ships and for one not at all, however it is significant for the desolator.

the list of non caps it influences is:
assailants.
bombers/fighters.
sentinels.