Talk:Desert Combat

Untitled
Shouldn't this article be deleted since, after all, every other BF1942 mod article seems to have been deleted? Nothing distinguishing about Desert Combat seems to set it apart from other prestigious BF1942 mods, like Forgotten Hope. If you delete one, you should delete all. - Johan
 * This articles has sources from CNN, the other articles don't BJ Talk 17:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I found this article useful. As time goes on general web sources of information for games like this "atrophy" and information on them disappear (the authors' webpages have a link to a non-existent fileplanet pages and no definitive information on what was the last version of the mod).  Information on the games becomes "historically significant".  So I'd vote for a keep.


 * Now related to what I came here for - I read that a few of the developers continued and released a "Desert Combat Final" - but that is treated almost seperately as an "add on to the add-on". Yet the "latest version" box on the page here simply says "Final".  Does that mean one should go looking for a "Desert Combat Final"?  Does that really count as a "Desert Combat" version?  Or just one of the many possible modified versions of the real final v0.7 version?  I've found references to "Desert Combat Final" being v0.8 (requires v0.7) and "v8 Final Patch".  IE: IF a person wanted to go play Desert Combat nowdays - what specific version should they go looking for?  Are all servers either "DC-Final v0.8" or is there a pool ov v0.7 servers AND servers playing mods of the mod including "Final"?
 * CraigWyllie 04:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think one of the news articles from the Desert Combat home page best explain it., link to the homepage. I think the development team was split up at that point, I'm not sure if Desert Combat FINAL is an offical version of Desert Combat, but if it wasn't it was made as an 'unoffical final version' by several people who worked on Desert Combat, as I don't think DC v0.7 was considered finished.  However, even if it is unoffical, and it is 'only' a mod, the Desert Combat homepage's article leads me to belive that it was only unoffical due to the fact that Trauma Studios became too tied up to work on it as a team. SaderBiscut 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The last 'official' version of Desert Combat is .7; version .8 aka DC_Final was contributed to by most the original developers, plus some fans. this was because of the reasons mentioned above by SaderBiscut, and some possible political issues arising from the DICE acquisition of Trauma. Barake (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Desert Combat is the most advanced and polished of Battlefield 1942 mods. The map areas are far more intricate, though the gameplay is much faster due to more effective vehicles. The combat kits are more interesting, though they may not be as balanced. -Dan Smith

Added a few missing weapons/vehicles, cleaned/clarified links on a few others(process uncompleted due to Wikipedia's article text search shutting off partway through). Notes: I left the 'MH-53' Link I added as just that as I have no clue which variant it actually is. The game has it listed as simply 'MH-53' so I left it at that. PSS was left unlinked for a simple reason, I was unable to track down what the heck it actually is. It is used as the secondary weapon for the VSS Iraqi SpecOps weapons kit. It is a small, very quiet pistol with an eight-round clip. More details I do not know, part of why I couldn't figure out what it was to link to it. I'd have linked it anyway except PSS is a Disamb page for several unrelated things and would be deceptive. Didn't touch the maps, someone else can update to the new DC_Final mapslist. -Graptor 216.68.196.91 (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2005

Went through the weapons again, finished what I started. Did some more research as to what the remaining unknown weapons were, and Changed links accordingly. Article for the Skorpion is missing as far as I can tell, but that's definetly the right gun. Tabuk Sniper Rifle according to my (admittedly somewhat cursory) research appears to be a specially made Iraqi rifle that consists of derivatives of several other designs, so I left that alone(source: http://www.pmulcahy.com/sniper_rifles/iraqi_sniper_rifles.htm ). I actually was able to track down the PSS this time as well. It expands to 'Pistolet Sptsialnyj Samozaryadnyj' according to http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg24-e.htm, which translates as 'Special Self-loading pistol'(a Designation I found on several other sites as well). Unable to find any other designation for it, so I left it unlinked for the time being. Someone else with more experience can figure out what to do with that. -Graptor 66.42.156.231 (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2005


 * If I recall when this article was young it had a weapons list already, but it was removed because it was irrelevant. If you want to continue your weapons work I suggest viewing the page a few years back. Cheers Sgt Simpson (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It WAS several years ago. I was more of a wikinoob at the time and hadn't figured out how to sign it, or something.  The first post is 05:41, 3 January 2005 216.68.196.91, the second is 09:18, 21 April 2005 66.42.156.231.  The second and third edits EVER to the talk page.  Someone started putting stuff out of order! -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it...why don't I just... better. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It had a weapons list that I majorly contributed to until it was deleted a little over 2 months ago. Nohomers48 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It already had one when I stumbled upon it in January 2005, but a fair portion of the weapons had overly generic labels ("Beretta" "Squad Automatic Weapon" "Abrams" etc) which is what I fixed initially. Came back a few months later and linked a couple I hadn't been able to find previously and did some minor changes to the links.  So yeah, I feel your pain. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

added a "player trends" section
hi, added a player trends section about BF:DC

Debroglie 1 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

"Desert Combat is the most advanced and polished of Battlefield 1942 mods. The map areas are far more intricate, though the gameplay is much faster due to more effective vehicles. The combat kits are more interesting, though they may not be as balanced. -Dan Smith"

This is BS, but the poster most likely knew this. The MOD contains virtually nothing that other MODs didn't do before, it only managed to pull off a huge fanbase in the US (Since it's about US invading Iraq..go figure.)

Incorrect, it was able to make air ground and sea combat mesh seemlessly and provide a fun experience with totally user created content in a modern warfare zone -Sgt Simpson


 * You are incorrect. Have you ever played any other mod or even BF1942 - the game they modded on?

I hardly belive (have played many mods to Galatic conquest to the Vietnam one) that such mods are polished or have made an impact on the 1942 community such as Desert Combat, considering that the DC mod outnumbers any other mod tenfold and the unmodded game for quite some time


 * Your statement that it was the most advanced is still incorrect, nomatter what your opinion on its status is. And you are incorrect in stating that it had more players then the unmodded game. Zarkow 11:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

source?

the damn server finder, count for ur self

Fix the Player trends section
Many DC only trends were formed, none are mentioned such as the pop n drop, ill post link later

Desert Conflict?
Why have they been moved into this article?, they already state that they are no way affiliated with Desert Combat or Tramua, and they are essentiallly a carbon copy of Desert Combat, so what is the point of them being in this article when their contents list is going to be more or less the same as the real Desert Combat? They should be moved back into their own article where they were IMO.

Clean-up
I did some reformatting, but most of my efforts were into correcting vocabulary and grammer. also, I deleted the subjective statements within the article, which basically mean that anything that indicated opinions were removed. remember, this is a online encyclopedia, not a forum for discussion. if you were to check the history, the changes under 202.156.6.54 were also mine - I forgot to log in. cheers.--Ariedartin 16:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Media Attention-section
It's written: "Desert Combat has been featured on many media websites such as CNN, Reuters, Washington Post, and other computer magazines. This is remarkable, considering that usually only the games themselves will attract media attention rather than their mods." First of all it's not correct in giving an impression that no other mods have repeated attension in computer-magazines. On the contrary, most magazines have mod-sections. Secondly the mod was on CNN and so on since the US was going into war with...Iraq. The mod is about the conflict of -91, but still had the very same topic.

Other mods have also been shown in [their] national mainstream media and surely would be even more so if their country went into war and a mod was about just that conflict... Zarkow 11:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

ok Desert Combat covers both gulf wars

Nop. Just the first one. I suppose one could take the "because their both in the desert and only 12 years apart" aproach, but Desert Combat is based on Desert Storm. SaderBiscut 19:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

look at some of the map names, the correspond to battles in gulf war 2 (especially DCF)

Proposed merge
DCX should NOT be merged into this page - although they have similar names and share content, they are entirely different. Just because Desert Combat is a modified version of Battlefield 1942 doesn't mean that their articles should be merged, by the same token just because DCX is a modified version of Desert Combat doesn't mean that those articles should be merged. Cynical 21:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

i was against it before, but then i realized that DCX was a DCom mod, and realism was in it, so im like what the hell, go ahead

There should be no merger, but this page should have an outline of what Desert Combat Extended is, because it was an earlier mod. Similar to Counter-Strike: Condition Zero on the Counter-Strike page. Dallas 13:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

i think DCX should be merged with DC, but in a different heading.

As the creator of DCX, I think it needs to be seperate. DCX is very different and is now actually larger than the DC mod itself. I intend on editing the DCX page itself to dig deeper into what DCX is and what it does so it's best to keep it seperate. -- Zeuser

Cleanup
I cleaned the article up a little, removing POV statements and bits which I felt went into too much detail: an external link would be more suitable for that. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 10:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

nice clean up btw, i updated citations for cnn and washington post, but rueters, has ceased to exsist, as it is old news, there is a record of it exsisting here: http://www.desertcombat.com/?page=press

Sgt Simpson 06:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Weapon list

 * The giant weapon list is ridiculous. I am taking it out.  Wickethewok 21:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, giant massive lists in articles are bad. They reduce readability and usefulness of an article.  Its much better to convert what you can to prose and leave the rest out.  Wickethewok 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. People ask about DC's features all the time. A feature list makes sense in an encyclopedia since it's a good reference point for all.

copyright
i just in essence wrote what it sayd on the desert combat site about DC, and apparently, im flagged for copyright infringment? i fail to see how
 * BJ Talk 08:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

still i fail to see
 * What you wrote has appeared at least on 3 different other sites before Wikipeida... BJ Talk 13:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pwnageincommingyz1.png
Image:Pwnageincommingyz1.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
"The way to Baghdad", displayed during loading screens... which shows real-life photos of the war in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwan1980 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Linux?
How does Desert Combat support Linux when Battlefield 1942 does not? --77.185.161.163 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They released the mod for Linux as well as Windows, and BF1942 does run on Linux, but one would require Wine in order to run it, as shown on this page: http://wine-reviews.net/games/battlefield-1942-on-linux-with-wine.html Nohomers48 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Desert Combat. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.desertcombat.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Fairly well sourced (if small) article. Nominator is a new account who has ONLY nominated articles for deletion. -- DP 76764 (Talk) 19:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Desert Combat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040930015854/http://www.fileplanet.com/fpweekly/fp_weekly_03_12_30.html to http://www.fileplanet.com/fpweekly/fp_weekly_03_12_30.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DVZShp17?url=http://www.gamespy.com/ to http://archive.gamespy.com/goty2003/pc/index12.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)