Yes there is a Z-axis, and you can order ships on it.

I don't remember the command key involved, I've never had any need to use it.

yep, u can control in 3d.... ill find u a vid of it... theres one on youtube where its obviously 3d control

here we are:CLICK ME!!

around minute 3 its obivously been steered "up"

glad there isnt any z axis bs in this game. i mean it wasnt even that useful in hw2 just an annoyance..

Great vid, thanks! One of the best I've seen, incidentally.
I disagree with Bob about the z-axis... why should it be an annoyance? But I agree that I can live without the total freedom of movement... not that it's bad.

I understand that the bomber is steering "up", but the question I was asking (and now have answered thanks to Ron) is whether or not the play can actually order the bomber (or any other vessel, for that matter) to move "above" the common x-y plane, or indeed below it.
Thanks for your input.

Well, it makes more sense to me if they are spherical anyway...

Yeah, I get how there usually isn't a reason to, but the knowledge that it's possible is comforting to a space-game zealot like me
Of course, you could say that it doubles the flanking opportunities, couldn't you?

Well, think about it. If defending a planet in full 3D would be a nightmare, doesn't that give you more attack opportunities? Thus you could easily defeat a turtle who forgot to look "up"... neat, eh?

Besides, it makes the game more realistic. One should never forget in space that one doesn't have a proprioceptory frame of reference.

Remember that the devs did actually include the z-axis for movement, as other discussion points in this thread have stated.

And why would z axis movement be bs? It just doesn't make sense. I've never seen reason in a space game, of all things, to take out an entire dimension of movement because it's "too complex". Hell, do you realize how shallow HW/2 would be without it's z-axis? How shallow Nexus would be? How shallow the tactical battles of MOO3 already are? Despite the fact that most people don't use the axis doesn't mean that it's inclusion is unnecessary or "too complex"; it simply means they are missing out on a tactical opportunity, and shouldn't complain if someone gets them from above or below - besides, it makes sense in the game universe. So I'm glad that although the devs didn't include z-axis travel as essential in this game (something that doesn't bother me all that much), they still made it an option, so those wishing to exploit the earth-bound (2d) defence habits of others can do so, and not be restrained by an illogical system.


Your statement is an insult to SoaSE, though I'm sure you didn't mean it such. Make sure you know what words like "simplistic" mean before you use them. It avoids confusion. That statement on its own could be seen to reinforce my point rather than yours - a simplistic movement area is unfavourable, but a simple, easy to use one isn't.

Oh goody! A like-minded space strategist *salute*

Nope, you can control z-axis movement...but it's not going to make a difference apparently.

And z-axis is *very* important in a space-sim/space strat. game, simply look at say HW vs. SotS (horrible game btw).

Hello Kitty Island Adventure has a really good Z-axis control. I pwn at that game!

I'm glad you all agree

Bob, though your input it much appreciated, don't use the word simplistic unless you know what it means, for crying out loud!
Simplistic is BAD: It means "overly simplified, simple beyond reasonableness"; you seem to be ignoring some posts.
We've already said that the z-axis will be allowed, and you're only now catching up? READ! It does help if you read what other people say before you reply to them. Come on! How many times do we have to repeat ourselves?
And again, if you want to praise Sins, use "simple", not "simplistic", because "simplistic" is perjorative. Perjorative means "negative ideas associated with this word".
*annoyed*