My two cents on PA: Meh...

Because you need to pay to get a bigger team, come now, you must have known that.

More money = more (professional) workers = more productivity = more money.

Simples. *insert meerkat here*

So what you're saying is... There's a gap in the video game developer slave market?

Yes the spherical maps are cool, but they are not better than non-spherical maps, they are just different. Both have upsides and downsides. The same for procedural vs. manmade. Personally I like maps with really distinct terrain and points of interest on the map (that guide the flow of the battle) better than spheres that have mainly flat terrain. I would love the PA maps more if they had the terrain from the initial concepts.
The orbital layer for me isn't fun as I explained (needs much more micromanagement than the other layers, orbital war isnt as fun as ground/naval/air war) and I don't think the submarine layer adds much to the gameplay ^^.
No unit cap is indeed cool, but in normal matches in SupCom you don't reach the unit cap anyway (I dont play turtle games on too big maps )
40 player matches, yes may be fun sometimes, but probably are not core of the gameplay concept for many players. I for example prefer small team games much more than large teamgames. And most likely all the 40 players matches will use multiple planets, resulting in all the problems I mentioned (unfun orbital stalling, lack of awareness).

The key improvements over SupCom are currently indeed all the technical advancements, Uber did a really great job with their multiplayer tech (client-server, replay vault, chrono cam etc.). But from a gameplay perspective, it has not overcome SupCom yet for me, and I play games because of the gameplay feel and not because of a list of (technical) features ^^. Its key selling points gameplay wise still have issues that have to be sorted out, and that's a sentiment that is apparently shared in many reviews. But I am positive that it will one day get there if the development continues or modders come up with good stuff.

Sounds to me you'd me much more at home playing starcraft than either supcom or PA. The entire point of these games is to play on huge maps, well at least that's why I bought them. (I realise that's a personal preference, but so was your entire post so there you go). In supcom my map choices were either seton's or a 3 maps worse than setons. PA procedural generated maps offer me so many more fields of play. So that's a good thing.

And spherical maps are something new, doesn't have to be better, new sells.

I don't need to know this. The point is that making new units isn't so hard that Uber couldn't possibly do it. There are lone modders with less than a tenth of the knowledge of an Uber employee pulling it off. Your examples don't prove otherwise.

I realize that adding a whole new tech tier is more work than just modeling some units. I also acknowledge the fact Uber is working on a tight budget, but really, can you objectively state that it's a necessity not to include more units? Rather it seems like a design decision that fits in perfectly with the other design choices I explained in my post. Moving on to that point:

Point still stands because the break in philosophy between Supcom FA and Supcom 2 is exactly what I'm talking about. I supposed that would be obvious.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. You are mixing your personal opinions with fact.

Read carefully, I said different tech levels have unique units. Your statement was that every tech tier is a an upgraded copy of the previous which is simply not true.

Besides, if you're talking factions then, mobile stealth (unit, were not talking buildings here) is unique to Cybran. Many other units are unique to a factions so your point doesn't hold water either way.

Well, doing the same with less content is debatable, and not really the point either in my opinion. It's about having more units to go with, period. You might find that unnecessary, others don't.

I would respectfully like to disagree with the supposed consensus regarding shields. Too powerful is an arbitrary argument, as you can change the balance to accomodate shields in a proper way. It's just one other part of the bigger strategy conplex that is being taken away. Stealth the same.

To close this off, you seem very defensive of PA. Let me make clear that I'm in no way trying to say other games are better, because that's subjective and can only be based on the game experience as a whole. A game with inferior unit diversity can still be a better game. I am, however, commenting on the supposed lack of funds or means to develop the game further which is a point raised in this thread. I personally feel doing stuff the Supcom FA way makes a better RTS, the fact that this game is very alive and kicking in Forged Alliance Forever seven years after release proves that it is a succesful game anyway.

I'm holding hope that future modding of PA will enable a whole lot of the stuff talked about here. Because I can also see the technological advancement of PA and see the orbital layer as an interesting addition.

No, I don't like Starcraft at all, and for me SupCom ist the best RTS I ever played (C&C Generals and The Battle for Middle Earth 2 right below that^^). In SupCom I enjoy a mapsize of 10x10 the most as the gameplay is perfect for that (as all units and all tech is viable, on 20x20 and larger there isnt even a point to build T1 units), and that mapsize is still bigger than all the maps in Starcraft or C&C, and it is big enough to have epic battles. Same for teamsize, you dont need 40 players to have an epic battle. I like smaller team games more than big team games cos big team games tend to lag and in PA you have to play on too big systems with multiple planets, which introduces all the orbital problems. You still can have pretty epic and intense battles in 1on1 or 2on2 or 3on3. There is also nothing wrong with huge maps per sé, unless you have lack of awareness. In SupCom that's not the case cos you see the entire battlefield when you zoom out, in PA the more planets you add to your system, the less awareness you have, and that just doesn't fit with this type of game which is about having total control. When they first showed their concept I imagined a system that gets rid of that flaw, some kind of minimap for all planets and a better notification system, or even having AI control your stuff on the planets you are not looking at (that was discussed during the kickstarter I believe).
I think you should check out all the great custom maps in SupCom, there are really amazing ones with really distinctive terrain, which is just more interesting than the more or less plain maps in PA. I always hoped that the terrain in PA would continue to evolve and that there will be pleateaus and valleys and stuff. Btw. I think Setons is a pretty lame map in SupCom
And don't get me wrong, I don't think PA is bad, it just has some flaws. And since it's the same genre as SupCom it is fair to compare the 2 games and see which game did specific things better.