Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26091970-20150604000724/@comment-26091970-20150927060946

154.5.164.69 wrote: This thread in a nutshell.

CVB is incorrect. CVR is incorrect. CVA is vaguely correct, but not in the way it should be.

The point of using the pre-existing USN hull designations is to make things simple to identify, and in the case of designations not existing, the substitute should be fairly easy to identify by intuition. I'm not advocating the use of any designation in this particular instance, just trying to clarify some guidelines. CVB is incorrect. However, CVR is simply a fanmade suggestion made by me to consider as a possibility for the armored carrier class. The reasoning for this is that the USN has no pre-existing hull designation for armored carriers. Normally, this wouldn't be an issue; however, Kantai Collection gives armored carriers different game mechanics from standard carriers.

I wouldn't mind using CVA or ACV if a large majority of players accepted it and found it simple to use for branching rules and recording ship compositions. However, it would probably irk the history buffs who would argue that both designations have been used for other types of carriers.

While the term CVB is incorrect, it at least serves as a viable way to differentiate armored carriers from standard carriers for now. The reason for this thread is to consider people's interests in whether they want to change or keep the current designation based on the possibility of actual large carriers (Shinano), as well as whether large carriers also get game mechanics that differ from standard carriers.

tl;dr The term CVR offers an original hull classification that can easily define armored carriers while separating them from standard and large carriers, even if it isn't a real USN classification (b/c they didn't have one for armored carriers).