I was sort of hoping that AI War 2 would be a full 3D game in all important aspects, which is to say, positional aspects. Each planet would be somewhat like the "Homeworlds" - but real 3D with no preferred direction instead of their "2D with elevations" which they sort of forced you to play as.
I know a lot of people will jump on me for this, but I really did not like Homeworld, and the camera was a big part of this. I thought it was a solid game, and I can definitely see why other people love it, but it just was not to my tastes at all. I like 3D space games, but not in an RTS context.
Also, I have no real plans for AI War 2, just as an FYI -- instead it will be expansions and continual improvements to the base game in support of those. So, in 2-3 years it will hopefully be that AI War plus its expansions will be equal to what AI War 2 (and maybe even 3) would have been, but with far more content since everything is carried forward.
I know that the standard pattern with games is to release a long series of separate titles, but I guess in some respects I look at this more like an MMO except without the fees. The way that MMOs are continually upgrading their base experience and adding optional expansions is very much in line with my style of thinking about software development in general, and I think it's the most friendly approach for actual players, too -- that way everyone benefits without being forced into the expansions if they don't want, and hopefully that will give the game a shelf life longer than Starcraft of Total Annihilation (not because of higher popularity of AI War, which seems unlikely, but because of the continual evolution of it ala MMOs).
With other Arcen titles, like Alden Ridge or some of the others planned, you might see a more traditional sequels model, but with AI War it just seems to me that having everything all in one game will make it better than if it were scattered across many games. That's the main reason I so much prefer the Rock Band series over the Guitar Hero brand, for instance.
Additionally, having an actual planet at the center of each planet - or turning each "planet" into a "solar system" with gravitational effects and/or moving planets and moons and/or occlusion (sniper turrets can't shoot you through the planet even if they can shoot anything in line of site), etc., would make ship placement very interesting.
That would be cool, but would also make the ship targeting even more CPU-intensive. I'd need to either lower the ship count or wait for better CPUs for that to be possible.
Non-euclidean movement due to warped spacetime (gravitational effects, planetary and solar wells, etc.) would be interesting as ship speed would vary depending on locality.
Some of this was actually discussed during alpha, actually, and I was really thinking about adding the effects of gravity wells on ship movement. But what I realized is that, without fuel, in an RTS context it just would not make much difference because when you click a point your ships are supposed to go there. If they don't, it's a broken RTS, and if they do, then the warping of their path there might not matter much. But some variant of this might make a comeback in a future DLC or expansion, we shall see. I certainly am attracted to the idea.
I know, I'm dreaming, but I sort of like the 3D concept. We all live in a 3D world, and I fly in one sometimes (c.f. Pitts aircraft).
I just feel like there are too few 2D games out there, and that's a dearth I aim to fill. Plus, 3D development requires a different sort of thinking and expertise, plus more expenses on making art and such. The AAA titles will almost always beat out the indies in 3D in terms of wow factor because of their resources, but I think that 2D done really well can have a lot of wow factor for a fraction of the cost. And, with the PC in particular but also some of the consoles, the possibilities of 2D are really staggering (just look at Braid, among others). So that's the space I really want to stay in, it's just where I have always been most interested.
