Originally posted by B@tfinkV
where else would you draw the line?
if they changed it so that you could land kills anywhere on the airfield 'terrain tile' then people would complain when they ditch just short of this target.
The tarmac thing, in my opinion, is quite silly.
The line does have to be drawn somewhere and I think that line would be better drawn at the airfield boundry.
If i coped a ditch because fell short of the entire field..... fair enough. It would just seem a little bit more realistic than the concrete thing.
Sure, you'd have a few dweebs belly-landing all over the place (which would be rather funny to watch from the tower from time to time), but really.... If one were to return from combat and land somewhere other than the designated landing area your superior officer would hardly say
"Oh, you missed the landing zone by 2 feet, your kills don't count son, sorry." I suppose that arguement could also be applied by missing the airfield too.... but seriously... who ever does that? It would just seem that missing the runway beacuse you blacked out just after you touched down perfectly on the concrete while dead-stick and were unable to keep the aircraft on the runway during said black-out is a little silly.
Also... while we're discussing this...why would a gear-up landing on the concrete be a ditch? Isn't a ditch being 'forced out of combat by an opponent in a state unfit to return to base?'
That is how I understand it.
If anything, a gear up landing on concrete (or anywhere on the field, in my opinion) would be a
crash landing if anything, which is a landing none the less.
As far as I understand, ditching means putting the aircraft down somewhere and having to leave it behind..... behind enemy lines or 15 miles from a bases etc.
