Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26091970-20150604000724/@comment-42.60.228.10-20150926163144

^^^"Slow battleships has a broad meaning which inlcude BBVs"

You mean slow BBVs. If by some chance fast BBVs appear in the future, you know the drill.

"FBB is distinguished for branching purposes only."

That's not what I was told last time; they were also distinguished by the equipment they can carry. But that's a minor issue. So moving on.

"Separate slow CVL from fast CVL?"

If we have to, yes. It's just that we don't have to at the moment.

^^"Make another one, sBB rend the designation BB useless."

No? When slow or fast BB is fine, you still use BB. Only If only fast BB is allowed, then you use fBB, and only if only slow BB is allowed, then use sBB. How is this hard to understand?

But fine, we'll just end it here for now and let the others decide since clearly neither of us is going to budge on this point.

^"I hope you don't mean vote on BB designations, because there's really nothing to vote about there."

It probably will because the discussion derailed to this extent. But again, moving on.

"But rather the "Armored carrier" issue, which is the topic here."

And my stand shall now be that they be collectively called CV, and if they need to be differeniated, "unarmoured CV" and "armoured CV".