Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26091970-20150604000724/@comment-749631-20150930091537

Hyper Shinchan wrote: Vcharng wrote:

Why are we using the Yanks' standard on the Japs' ships for starters? This, but it's way too late to change things now. Just like I gave up on explaining the difference between a seaplane tender (AV) and seaplane carrier (CVS, unused but allocated). In the end no one really cares and even the game made matters confusing with the likes of Akitsushima...

After some search, according to Japanese wikipedia, The article say the meaning of seaplane carrier and seaplane tender are different in English, however from what i can read from it, in Japanese it is one word (lit. Mothership for Seaplanes) and never being differentiated unless you are using English to help describing the categorization. And thus as a game under Japanese environment, there would be little to no point for them to separate them. I suppose that's like the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov is a Тяжёлый авианесущий крейсер in Russian but are simply called as Carrier in English.

Vcharng wrote: Hyper Shinchan wrote:

Vcharng wrote:

Why are we using the Yanks' standard on the Japs' ships for starters? This, but it's way too late to change things now. Just like I gave up on explaining the difference between a seaplane tender (AV) and seaplane carrier (CVS, unused but allocated). In the end no one really cares and even the game made matters confusing with the likes of Akitsushima...

I guess an AV cannot carry the seaplanes around, but a CVS can? Or that a CVS can satisfy each and every need (not just resupply, but also repair, crew exchange, etc.) while an AV probably can't? from some search, apparently the different is that can those seaplanes take off from the ship directly or do those seaplane need to take off on their own over the sea.