I have to say that i believe Krondike is correct in that GCW has incorrectly categorised Battlefield Vietnam as a part of bf1942.
When you do search, which page does it refer you to?
http://spacetarget.com/games/pc_battlefield_1942.shtml
Krondike is correct in that Battlefield Vietnam *IS IN NO WAY* connected to Battlefield 1942 because it's a *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAME* - so why put it in the bf1942 section?
Then, if you look at each patch entry, it's listed as: BF1942: Vietnam v1.0 [ENGLISH] No-CD Patch
...which is again wrong... BFV has nothing to do with BF1942 - it's not an expansion pack, addon, update, patch, or upgrade.
If we take another example, Command & Conquer - Generals,
http://spacetarget.com/games/pc_cc_generals.shtml
why wasn't it added to the other C&C sections such as...
http://spacetarget.com/games/pc_cc_r..._revenge.shtml
...oh yes... because it's a *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAME*
...what about grouping Battlefield Vietnam, with Line of Sight: Vietnam (because they have the word Vietnam in the title) - and let's add Vietcong because it's about the same subject... hmm I know why not... because they are *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAMES*....
....oooo I know, why wasn't Halo & Conan grouped together... err because they are *COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAMES*.... can anyone see some sort of trend pattern here...
..so Bounty Warrior, before you ride off on your high horse, claiming all of GCW is infallible, please check your facts, and understand that GCW has many contradictory ways of grouping games together... and that this one is confusing, and more importantly, just plain wrong.