Board Thread:Event Community Discussion/@comment-28069733-20170521154728/@comment-1637496-20170529210724

Vcharng wrote: Oh, it's the Suiraitei, not the Gyouraitei.

Use that DANFS with extreme care, on the first page of that list it stated that the list contains terms from 18th century to modern, that's why it contains terms like CC being command ship (that's after 1969 when USS Mount McKinley became LCC-7 instead of AGC-7). We don't know which era this "PB" belongs to, but probably not WWII.

Either way, it's never safe to follow the Americans when they appearently don't care about IJN doctrine that a non-torpedo ship can never be known as anything that contains the word "destroyer". I would suggest we follow the American's definition of what is a DE, what is a PF, but judge individual ship classes by ourselves. They defined PF as commonwealth corvettes, but when they actually got one, they classified it as a PG (Flower/Temptress-class). They have their own reasons to do so, but these reasons may or may not apply to us. You're probably right on PB, after spending some time searching on the internet and Friedman's US Small Combatants it would look like it was introduced after 1965. That edition is dated exactly 1969, according to the same list LCC was introduced in 1968, CC dates back to 1961 (CC-1 Northampton).

Anyway, not only we're already ignoring Japanese conventions, AV are auxiliaries (A stands for that), while IJN seaplane carriers were main combatants (gunkan), even the  game introduced typologies like "light carriers" that didn't exist in the contemporary Japanese classification. In this situation being loose with the corresponding classifications won't do much harm as long as there's no overlapping.