Well, GC had correlian cruisers (and I think SDs) hovering over land maps, which I think would be pretty cool in FS, especially if in some maps they could pummel the ground, and force those battling down below to stay low and in cover, and hope a blast dosn't fry em. Something like that, or having non player or commander controled tie bombers dive down randomly and pummel teh ground with charges in the same fashion. Would be freaking awsome in a demolished city map.
But as for space, (and I have no idea about lag, or how any of that works) I don't know if background combat would be such a good idea. First off, it might deplete the feeling of importance you have when your fighting the battle. After all, while your team may be getting their arses kicked, with your ships depleted and fighters blown away, it might be kinda odd to see an imperial fleet just a bit away holding their own, and not aiding you.

Futurama: You Can't Prove it Won't Happen

How much lag could it be to just see a few turrets further away firing at a group of continually looping AT-ST's attacking? Obviously I have no experience in such things, but if it isn't much I'd say it would add to the battle.

animated backrounds? I don't think thats what he's talking about. He is saying make a turret shoot at a never ending loop of ATSTs spawning off map. That = LAGGGGG!!!!!!

I have always thought BF2 was the best example of an entire battlfield. You and the other people, represent the entire battle. Thats why most people love the Battlefield type of gameplay.

"Munchkin: One who, on being told that this is a game about politics and intrigue in 17th century Italy, asks to play a ninja."
— Andrew Rilstone