Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26091970-20150604000724/@comment-26574811-20150928013907

Qunow wrote:

Vcharng wrote: […]

So it seems like the question is more like "should we use the imperfect CVB, or the completely fictional CVR/ACVR?".

CVB has some degree of historical accuracy, as the only hull classification symbol ever put on an armored carrier (other than just CV), but as we all know, it's far from perfect.

CVR on the other hand has perfect freedom from historic burden, for being completely fabricated by our community. But as a WWII historic fan, I would (and I know some others would, too) find it weird to be talking around a non-historic and non-universal term.

I personaly prever CVB, it's nearly never used anyway, so the size of Midway doesn't mean that much to me, but it's at least the only distinct classification ever put on an armored carrier. So I guess we should create some sort of poll to let people vote on "Use the historically existing but inaccurate CVB large carrier code" or "Use the completely virtual but no confusion CVR reinforced carrier code"? (As from the thread current replies these two are the most supported two options) Yea, I think that would be a good thing to do, thank you sir.