@PhilM Its funny how some words and phrases just go naturally like peaches and cream, chalk and cheese and whats that other one oh yeah... Battlefront and Go figure!...
LOL!
I can recall commenting on this on the BF forums, back before RT came out but when the prospect was discussed of whatever became new in RT being ported back via upgrades to BN and FI ... and asking then, can we please have version numbers that make sense (!). Fell on deaf ears, clearly ...
I guess it was obvious when the first version of RT came out and was called "v 1.0" that - even though it is how everybody refers to it - the upgrades to the other games were not going suddenly to become v 3.0 when RT itself, the latest game, was still v1.0 ...
It does strike me as a little odd. Not only is it logical in itself to call RT "v 3.0" from the off (because, they didn't start with a clean sheet of paper to write it, rather it was built from whatever was then the latest engine build of the earlier titles, i.e. it wasn't "v 1.0" of the ENGINE ...); but what we are really talking about is a "badge", for the benefit of their customers. They can - and will - still, internally, call the software build version whatever they like to track its development: one would think they would also want to help their customers keep track, in how BF refer to the stage the game has reached, and how the families compare!
It's the difference between calling it:
CMRT v 3.0
and
CMx2 v 3.0: RT
i.e. the game / period that (first) gives effect to the CMx2 WW2 "v3.0" engine is RT; to be followed by CMx2 v 3.0: BN after it is patched, etc etc.
I feel fairly sure that there would be substantially fewer people confused by "my" naming system than there are already confused by BF's choice ...