And I just don't see it. None of you have made any examples so far throughout this thread
there are plenty of examples, you just happen to be disregarding them.
by the way: I dont see what "complexity" could POSSIBLY be added by making the system far more INTUITIVE. I swear, the first thing that is going to be noted in articles is that 3-D is both a huge flaw in game mechanics and is simultaneously a HUGE pain in the ass to pull off if you want to go through the arduous process of crossing your hands to hit the tilde key. I know for a certain fact that those two things will piss off 90% of space RTS fans, then all you are going to be left with is the 4x fans, who already dont seem to like the idea of the game.
you sacrafice tons to run this gamble because you dont see the simple facts:
1) the system needs to be reworked entirely anyway, making 3-D intuitive is the least of your problems, and stands also to be the best of your gains (or, rather, the best loss of a stupid failure)
2) building in 2-D is an unbalanced system when movement is possible in 3-D, again I can send my siege frigs around on a planet with an unbelievably heavy defense and, unless there are supporting frigs around (which there probably will be, even if there are, I could use my fleet to kill those) I could dump on that planet all day without an issue.
3) combat is simply not photogenic in 2-D, I rather despise the fact that all of the photos released to us are so obviously staged. I mean, even as a consumer that simply pisses me off.
4) now for the tactical reasons: combat in 3-D allows for more holes to be chosen in the attacking of a system, currently making a planet a fortress (forget the 3-D movement for now) is as simple as ringing it with 3 repair platforms, a shield battery, two or three hangers and a shitload of gauss. I can reduce the largest fleets of mine enemies to wimpering ashes without even having to look at the grav well, LAME. that turns defensive battles into either the smart kind, where all my defenses are completely bullshit useless, or are so effective taht they are worth 10 times their weight in gold.
5) battle in 3-D is by far more depth based. currently ships do not move beyond a certain "close in" range, in 3-D depth is important because ALL angles of a ship's firing can be used
even if the ship isnt completely surrounded. this makes tactical moves like rushing instead of sparring while hanging back important tactical decisions.
6) it allows the battles to be more fluid and lifelike than simply sparring semicircles, which look like crap I might add. not to mention when you work in 3-D working by sparring off one ship at a time is not nescessarily as effective as spreading damage out or attacking a specific, backline target
7) while ships do not have front/side/back armor, they do have ark ranges, and attacking from one direction sometimes proves more effective than simply going straight in at your enemy
8) it also allows you to dodge your enemy fleet if you dont want to nescessarily come into contact with them. say you're running to the opposite side of the grav well, your enemy (either on autoattack or moving to keep you from supposedly bombing his planet) goes around one side of the planet, basically your options are: charge through his line or go the other way around. if the 'other way around' is gauss cannons then you're stuck. 3-D allows you to try and make minimalist or maximalist decisions that are not otherwise utilable in 2-D
not to mention I seriously thought we were promised 3-D after the disaster that was SotS