Actually, I played SC a lot. I also played DoW a lot, but not as much as SupCom or SC. I feel that SC did plenty, but felt that DoW didn't do as much as SC to push ahead. So it's not disappointment, just my opinion.
As for Sins and Homeworld, they're not that much alike.
Homeworld is played within a fairly tight scope, the relative size that you commonly find in RTS games.
Sins is played using planets interconnected by phase lanes which allow the playing area to become enormous.
Homeworld (I assume you mean the original) has equal vessels, minus a couple.
Sins has 'equivalent' vessels, but each race has a different balance and abilities that make them tactically unique.
Homeworld is truly 3-D, forcing you to consider all the options therein.
Sins is rendered in 3-D, but your commands within a gravity well are 2-D.
Homeworld has no planet management or such outside of the fleet (not counting the Complex mod for #2).
Sins is partially 4x, meaning that you have to manage your planets, including happiness (minor issue) and improvements (major issue).
I would agree that many maps on Sins push for a more slow and strategical play style, but small to medium maps can be rushed and there are speed options to get things going faster. I never felt Homeworld was terribly strategical, but I guess that can be a matter of relativity.
Edit: If I were to feel disappointed by anything, it would be that Conquest: Frontier Wars never got the recognition SC did. As one critic put it, it's 'what StarCraft should have been'. It's like a half way between SC and Sins. If anyone likes that idea, I recommend looking it up. They didn't have quite the production budget or advertising that Blizzard could pull off, but they produced a fun game.
