Landing at the airfield

[Lusche]

nutz is not one to care about name in lights or score.  I would like to know the percentage of grass / tarmac runways during the war. 

Personally any where in the square confines of the base should do,  the saying 'any landing you can walk away from is a good one' (except not on concrete)  just doesn't sound right.   

We would have to redefine "walk away from" then.

As being said, if you bring your plane to a screeching stop without wings, gear, tail and whatnot anywhere on a field to get a 2safe landing" with name in lights and getting the highest perk/score multiplier, we could simply get rid of runways totally.
Landing on "concrete" can be a challenge sometimes, but I see that as a plus... and it's a clearly defined one, contrary to a vague "x ft from runway", which could easily disputed in the very same way. As a matter of fact, I don't even see a need for such or similar changes.

[Tilt]

You land on concrete at a vehicle field and get a "successfull landing" yet three feet off the runway at an air field (wheels down) and get a ditch  but a smashed up carcass on concrete gets a " successful landing".

it does not all add up IMO.

It would be better if we had to land within a range of the relevant (fighter/ bomber) hanger on an air field, wheels down for an SL. Wheels up would be a ditch ( anywhere!). vehicles have their own special problems.

[Bruv119]

lets just use the taxi ways and make it so that you have to end flight in a hangar!   I mean come on who leaves their ride parked in the middle of a runway! 

same goes for GVs out in the woods,  must drive back and land in the VH.  Will stop people upping wirbs then towering when they hear the bombs fall.   

[kvuo75]

maybe 10ft or so?

why not 10yds.. or 10km, or 10 miles??

[Karnak]

It is good as it is.  It is a clearly defined space that works as a challenge, slightly, to get your aircraft to stop on it.  The reward is for doing so.  Landing on the base doesn't penalize you, it just doesn't reward you.

The V Field thing is a separate issue and what I'd like to see there is separating GVs and airplanes, other than the Fi156, into two categories as to where they can land successfully.  Airplanes should not be able to land successfully at V Fields and GVs should not be able to "land successfully" on runways.  At airfields GVs would need to land on concrete near the VH.

[The Fugitive]

You land on concrete at a vehicle field and get a "successfull landing" yet three feet off the runway at an air field (wheels down) and get a ditch  but a smashed up carcass on concrete gets a " successful landing".

it does not all add up IMO.

It would be better if we had to land within a range of the relevant (fighter/ bomber) hanger on an air field, wheels down for an SL. Wheels up would be a ditch ( anywhere!). vehicles have their own special problems.

sure it does. As this is a GAME! One of the challenges of the game is to land on concrete to get the most possible points. Like football you must get the ball across the goal line with out going out of bounds, or get the ball into the goal, depending which football your thinking about. Hitting the post or being forced out of bounds with in the last yard doesn't count.

[Tank-Ace]

Bruv, the issue is that GV's never have needed a pre-prepared base to opperate from. Litterally, a shelter half stretched between two trees is as good as a steel roof..... Just so long as it keeps the rain off while you're tinkering with the engine.



As to the aircraft thing, who cares if its about name in lights. If our goal is to stop name in lights playing, then we should bump the kill requirment to, say 4, and put a bomber damage limit on.


If the RW's only purpose is to keep people from landing anywhere and getting their name in lights, then why not actually make the name in lights thing only for actual accomplishments.

[Karnak]

Landing two kills is an accomplishment for most players.

I do agree that there should be a minimum damage amount needed for a bomber to get its name in lights.  Seeing "John has landing 972 damage in a Lancaster Mk III" isn't very impressive.

[Tilt]

sure it does.

I dont agree... the consequence is dispropotionate and un representative............... ...

Player messes up landing and smashes aircraft to bits but stays on concrete..........SL  Player ends with a perfectly intact plane on grass.................Ditch.

It makes no sense............ even more so when so many airfields were grass anyway.........

In my view the player should land a perfectly flyable aircraft (or at least one that can be towed to a hanger) on the airfield (and not a vehicle field, town, or factory) to get an SL.

Further he should get a bonus if its the one he took off from.

[Tank-Ace]

Maybe not just towable, but at least the main parts of the aircraft intact (e.g., you're not missing an entire wing, the tail, and half of your other wing.).

I mean a belly-landed aircraft can still be repaired. Not nearly as easily as one that just banged up the nose, and smashed up the propeller, but its not like that aircraft is a complete write-off either.

[Daddkev]

 

[matt]

Let jeeps tow friendly planes. About to ditch? Call a friend. How is this going to work? I don't know, but HTC can always surprise us.

+1

[guncrasher]

I dont agree... the consequence is dispropotionate and un representative............... ...

Player messes up landing and smashes aircraft to bits but stays on concrete..........SL  Player ends with a perfectly intact plane on grass.................Ditch.

It makes no sense............ even more so when so many airfields were grass anyway.........

In my view the player should land a perfectly flyable aircraft (or at least one that can be towed to a hanger) on the airfield (and not a vehicle field, town, or factory) to get an SL.

Further he should get a bonus if its the one he took off from.

dont land on grass with a perfectly good airplane.  runway gives you full points.


semp

[The Fugitive]

I dont agree... the consequence is dispropotionate and un representative............... ...

Player messes up landing and smashes aircraft to bits but stays on concrete..........SL  Player ends with a perfectly intact plane on grass.................Ditch.

It makes no sense............ even more so when so many airfields were grass anyway.........

In my view the player should land a perfectly flyable aircraft (or at least one that can be towed to a hanger) on the airfield (and not a vehicle field, town, or factory) to get an SL.

Further he should get a bonus if its the one he took off from.

ahhh it sounds like you want it to be harder, I could live with that.

Landing on the runway would have to stand as that is one of the goals in the game. I agree that a bonus would be good to return to the base you rolled from. On top of that I think if you don't land on the runway on your wheels you should get a ditch. It would add that bit more of trying to get down under an attack and get that thing wooooed up and stopped before you get vulch just to get a good landing.

[Scotty55OEFVet]

nutz is not one to care about name in lights or score.  I would like to know the percentage of grass / tarmac runways during the war. 

Personally any where in the square confines of the base should do,  the saying 'any landing you can walk away from is a good one' (except not on concrete)  just doesn't sound right.   

+10

Yesterday I landed a B17 on the runway and as I stopped I thought to myself, well, I better check to make sure im on the runway cuz it looks pretty close. So I go to F3 mode, look down on my 17, and the WHOLE PLANE except maybe the tip of the nose was on the CONCRETE. So I end sortie and whaddya know...."You have Ditched"-This kind of thing is really frustrating. Had 5 kills other day and had wheels on concrete and most of plane but my left wing was over the grass..."You have Ditched"...AHhhhhhhhhh!!!