Same goes with space, I'm not sure how feasible this is... I can only imagine it would be a nightmarish amount of work. It appears that the scale of the game, while massive may not have the head-room so to speak to allow for air/space units take on true 3 dimensional control/combat. I did not see this having been brought up anywhere yet.
What would be the advantages of different Z-axis? I can only imagine one: flying over ground based AA. That doesn't require Z-axis controls, just a "fly high/low" toggle switch, and I'm not sure if it's a good idea either way.
Well, PA is all about trying to be outside the box, So I am pretty much dreaming here! If there was that much room above the land-mass. It could introduce a new layer of gameplay, with air units themselves trying to engage and evade each other in 3 dimensions, It could allow for massive differences in the way aircraft preform, Think terribly fast little drones, flying over-under circles around some huge factory carrier. You could also hold pattern outside of low-level AA range/flak. Forcing missle batteries to be needed. It could allow bombardment, (though not very powerful/accurate) just tons of stuff. I think this would be a heroic task to program really. I think having the game be based on 3d terrain but forcing units to a few 'planes' of interaction would seem soooo much simpler. But this is reaching for the sky here. Literally!
To be honest, I think most of the stuff you'd want it doable without Z-axis as well. Also, air is only a small part of the game so putting in all this time is probably not a good idea. Homeworld did the whole "fighting in 3d" thing and it only worked to some extent because the whole game was about spaceships. You'd need way too much airspace to properly do Z-axis fighting in a useful way. I don't think it'd be very fitting in a game like this one.
Dogfights look a lot more cool when units jinx in 3-D. Rather than hovering at the same height. It also adds alot of complexity to the air micro. That said. It is takes alot of attention and learning to be able to utilize this complexity to the point where it adds depth to the air game. Air fights are usually very volatile and over quickly.
Don't get me wrong; I'd like to see planes operate on different Z-axises. But I don't think we need special controls for it; just something that the planes do on their own because it looks cool. It adds little in terms of gameplay, so no real reason to have any control over how they fly.
High altitude- over mountains and uses direct attack paths. Very fast, hugely visible to radar systems, and very vulnerable to long range AA. Special mode for fast air (raiders, strat bombers), typically limited by ammo or fuel or some equivalent. Med altitude- between mountains and does some zig zagging. Vulnerable to AA systems and perhaps special defense (physics guns/tractors/magnets, arty/tac/bomb defense, etc.). Easily visible, has good vision, good mix of attack/defense/speed. Standard mode for fast air. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Low altitude- Slower and very vulnerable to both ground fire and AA systems. Hides behind most terrain features, moderately visible. Standard mode for transports, gunships, and support constructors. Ground altitude- Suffered by most things to repair/rearm. Under the radar, basically hover mode, protected from most AA. Special gunship mode to sneak across flat terrain or ocean biomes(transports/etc.), but otherwise slow and vulnerable to direct fire. Woah woah. Altitude is the #1 safety net an aircraft has. Many of the T3 planes in Supcom were nearly immune to T1 defenses because of their high altitude flight. It can play a big role in detection, and whether or not units can be shot by air/ground defenses. If the desert terrain is any indication, aircraft can sneak up to a base from behind the mountains and avoid a lot of trouble along the way.
