It was recently mentioned by a dev (Neutrino?) on this forum that Supreme Commander/Forged Alliance was never really a competitive game. The accuracy of this statement hinges upon your definition of "competitive". I think, however, that some steps should be taken to help ensure Planetary Annihilation is competitive: A competitive game is a successful game. Here is a list of some things that can make Planetary Annihilation competitive. Note that most are taken from Starcraft 2, due to it being unquestionably the most competitive RTS game ever made. However, much of Starcraft 2 is merely legacy held over from the original, so it's important not to copy SC2 merely to copy it. Properties to improve competitiveness: -Quick simulation and UI response times. -Replays, preferably with recorded meta-data, player inputs/views, and advanced replay viewer functions. -Direct unit control and predictable unit behavior. (The opposite of this is supreme commander, where units may move away from designated waypoints due to attempting to make formations.) -Benefits to micro-managing units/bases. Starcraft 2 takes this to an extreme, where micro alone can multiple a force's effective strength by 2 or higher, and even simple processes cannot be automated (like spamming units of a single type). The benefit to micro need not be that large, but some benefit should exist. -Moddable UI-It's unlikely that a developer will come up with a UI that's more efficient than that made by players. May as well just let them do it. With these, Planetary Annihilation should form a solid foundation for competition.