Board Thread:Game Updates/@comment-3502824-20180328015558/@comment-28069733-20180411084609

2605:6001:F447:8400:D8E3:DC8F:8229:C1D8 wrote: Vcharng wrote: CVB was the most historically correct choice we had. The KC wiki only began to be anti-historical at the choice of DE.

And if you want to even talk as equals to me, go get an account first. So that when you have some wrongdoing as you are doing now, we have a way to track you down. No they were just called CVs. Taihou was not big enough to be called a CVB. You really are a shitter Vcharng Calling someone a shitter won't net you any points in this discussion, especially since you insist on being anonymous. Also, has her own unique API type value which is not the same as the standard carriers we've been seeing, we cannot just slap CV on her and be done with it for this reason.

has one distinction which all the other carrier predecessors clearly lack, an Armoured Flight Deck. Admittedly, having an Armoured Flight Deck isn't a criteria for a carrier to be considered a CVB, but rather the displacement of the ship. CVA was the more correct term to describe this unique trait that distinguishes them from the generic carriers.

With that said, it's pointless to delve into this any longer as changing the classification of CVB to CVA now would cause me more administrative issues, which I'm not really interested in =3=. If everyone decides that Armoured Flight Deck == CVB, then there are no issues really. If by some off-chance that Shinano gets implemented with a different API type though, then I will take action. :P