I like the idea overall but dislike the idea of unnatural "forced" limitations.
For example, if you had high altitude AA placements I'd much rather they be ineffective against close range targets due to a heavily slowed ability to track targets. This would make little to no difference at long range, but at close range aircraft would be easily able to out-maneuver said defenses yet if they were dumb enough to attack head on then they're still going to get hurt.
Also, as a fan of asymmetrical design (where appropriate), I think AA Maxes should have some differing innate strengths.
So for example, based on the low/mid/high alt idea and the PS1 Maxes as a base:
- Sparrow could have some capability at the highest altitude but at the cost of some low altitude difficulties (longer locking time, slower damage degradation?)
- Burster could be equally effective at all ranges, offset by the difficulty of getting shots to actually land at said ranges (travel time, lower but flat damage value?)
- Starfire could be most effective at the low to mid range, but with the benefit of the highest damage (higher base damage, more damage degradation?)
Just ideas of course, the point being I'd hate to see too much symmetrical design (that's what common pool weapons are for!).