FANDOM


  • Fujihita
    Fujihita closed this thread because:
    Nothing about this discussion is official. Most wiki staffs have expressed indifference on the class designation and disapproval on the change. Accordingly, should edit war break out as a result of this discussion, status quo (that is the CVB designation) will be enforced. This thread is closed by the minimum one-half (6/12) administrative poll (For votes: Fujihita, Admiral Mikado, ArticaFrost, Nanamin, Dechidechi, The Lenrir)
    20:59, October 1, 2015

    Edit: Please discuss in this only thread. Vote for your choice in Thread:338239

    Greetings fellow Admirals,

    This thread will discuss Taihou's designation as a CVB.

    Through English translations, Taihou is currently classified as a CVB, or large aircraft carrier. This term is incorrect due to the relative size of carriers during WWII. In particular, much larger carriers such as the Midway of the USN officially used the designation CVB. On the other hand, Taihou is much smaller than the CVB designation would suggest.

    I would like to suggest some possible class designations for Taihou the armored aircraft carrier:

    CVR: The idea behind this designation is that the R stands for "reinforced". In other words CVR would mean "reinforced aircraft carrier", which would be a fitting designation for the armored carrier Taihou.

    ACVR: This suggestion takes into account the designation for the armored cruiser, which is ACR. Normally, a cruiser is designated by the letter C. Following this logic, we could call an armored aircraft carrier ACVR.

    I would like to hear other suggestions for classifying the armored carrier, as well as whether you prefer any of these suggestions or would just keep Taihou classified as a CVB.

    Have a good day!


      Loading editor
    • My vote on CVR

        Loading editor
    • I'd also go for CVR.

        Loading editor
    • CVA was used for something else in the past, but since CA used to be Armored Cruiser, wouldn't CVA be the logical code? ACVR makes it look like an auxiliary. I wouldn't mind CVR, but CVA to align with CA makes a bit more sense to me.

      Either way, pop me a message on my wall when you've reached consensus and I'll update Module:Formatting.

        Loading editor
    • Ckwng wrote:
      CVA was used for something else in the past, but since CA used to be Armored Cruiser, wouldn't CVA be the logical code? ACVR makes it look like an auxiliary. I wouldn't mind CVR, but CVA to align with CA makes a bit more sense to me.

      Either way, pop me a message on my wall when you've reached consensus and I'll update Module:Formatting.

      Even if there was a change from the past designation, you have to remember that Kantai Collection uses CA as Heavy Cruiser. If we used CVA, it would seem like Heavy Aircraft Carrier. Anyways, thanks for your feedback, and I'll get back to you if a consensus is reached :)

        Loading editor
    • The designation 'CVA' was actually used for a while to refer to attack aircraft carriers.  Though I'm not sure what even distinguishes an 'attack' aircraft carrier from any other aircraft carrier and that designation was eventually merged back in with CV.

      Anyway, it's a messy business.  I wonder what they're going to call Shinano if/when she's added to the game since she's certainly big enough to be considered a CVB.  On the other hand her planned roll was something more like a support ship since her actual air wing was really small.

        Loading editor
    • Kevadu wrote:
      Anyway, it's a messy business.  I wonder what they're going to call Shinano if/when she's added to the game since she's certainly big enough to be considered a CVB.  On the other hand her planned roll was something more like a support ship since her actual air wing was really small.

      If they classify Shinano as a CVB, people will probably mistaken Shinano for an armored carrier. I think the fanbase should consider altering Taihou's classification, or just classify Shinano as a CV if she follows the same branching rules as the other CVs.

        Loading editor
    • Kadokawa never classified Taihou as anything other than an Armored Carrier (装甲空母). CVB is purely a fan designation.

        Loading editor
    • Ckwng wrote:
      Kadokawa never classified Taihou as anything other than an Armored Carrier (装甲空母). CVB is purely a fan designation.

      I understand that the Japanese designation is Armored Carrier, and that the fan designation is CVB. However, CVB is the designation for a large aircraft carrier, which Taihou is not (think Midway or Shinano). In the event that a large carrier such as Shinano becomes available in the game, we want to give a proper class designation to distinguish Taihou (and potential future armored carriers) from regular CVs and large CVBs.

        Loading editor
    • Hi, we came to the consensus a while back that her designation is CV, not CVB, and I believe everything on this wiki currently reflects that.

        Loading editor
    • After talking to people I agree her rl designation should have been CV.  However, this is a game and Taihou is techincally not clasified as a CV by Developers.  We should respect that and give her a seperate category. 

      Proof of this can be seen in ship game where she is not placed with the other CV and has a seperate desigination.  She also does not fulfil CV branching rules for 2-2.  As far as we know in other situations she behaves just like a CV.  However the issue that the Devs have given her a seperate category is factual.  If the devs wanted her to be a CV, they would have labeled her a CV instead of giving her a seperate category.

        Loading editor
    • Kevadu wrote:
      The designation 'CVA' was actually used for a while to refer to attack aircraft carriers.  Though I'm not sure what even distinguishes an 'attack' aircraft carrier from any other aircraft carrier and that designation was eventually merged back in with CV.

      CVA (Attack Aircraft Carrier) also got name as Supercarrier. This hull classification only applies to really heavy carriers (70k tons and above). Historically 2 CVA class was planned by USN on WWII but both are canceled. Afterwards, supercarriers now got CVN hull classification.

        Loading editor
    • @Ebisuisei: I wasn't trying to say that CVB is correct. You used "they", so it seemed like you were implying that Kadokawa themselves attached CVB to 装甲空母, which is not the case. Why should Kadokawa alter Taihou's classification? They didn't do anything wrong, the western fanbase just decided to call 装甲空母 CVB, and that is the mistake, Kadokawa is absolutely not at fault for anything, nor do they need to do anything like changing Taihou's classification.

        Loading editor
    • Ckwng wrote:
      @Ebisuisei: I wasn't trying to say that CVB is correct. You used "they", so it seemed like you were implying that Kadokawa themselves attached CVB to 装甲空母, which is not the case. Why should Kadokawa alter Taihou's classification? They didn't do anything wrong, the western fanbase just decided to call 装甲空母 CVB, and that is the mistake, Kadokawa is absolutely not at fault for anything, nor do they need to do anything like changing Taihou's classification.


      OK, there's a misunderstanding here. I'm implying that the fanbase made the mistake by using the CVB designation.In the event that a REAL CVB (Shinano) is added to the game, the fanbase and the specialized viewers used when playing Kancolle need to change the carrier designation system. This is why we're even suggesting the alternatives for Taihou's class in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, but before your edit it sounded completely different ;D

        Loading editor
    • well, in Japanese classification, Shinano is also Armored Carrier, thus it should have the same classification as Taihou in game.

        Loading editor
    • Qunow
      Qunow removed this reply because:
      .
      21:57, September 25, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • Ebisuisei wrote:


      OK, there's a misunderstanding here. I'm implying that the fanbase made the mistake by using the CVB designation.In the event that a REAL CVB (Shinano) is added to the game, the fanbase and the specialized viewers used when playing Kancolle need to change the carrier designation system. This is why we're even suggesting the alternatives for Taihou's class in the first place.

      In the event that Shinano gets added, what are the chances of her getting a special in-game class called CVB anyway. Chances are that she'd probably just join one of the existing CV ship classes "Standard Carrier" or "Armoured Carrier" albeit with a higher consumption

      If not, what special ability would a new "CVB (Shinano)" class have? The magical ability to attack at night just because she's "CVB"? I think using Shinano as a reason for change is a huge non-issue

        Loading editor
    • While I do advocate the term "ACV" for Armored Carrier since it's closest to the tenets of the Hull Classification system and more intuitive, "CVR" is a nice alternative.

        Loading editor
    • CVB Shinano or Midway is able to carry twin-engine bomber for long range bombing, not just dive bomber for close-air-support, due her long and wide deck while other standard carrier unable do that. And "B" for large, not armoured, so Taihou or Shokaku unable to "large" enough, they may can call CVR, but not CVB.

      Also her displacement is as twice as standard carrier like Akagi or Kaga, that why in cruiser there are Light, Heavy and Battle catalog with different displacement there. And her hull, keeping battleship sharp since her hull come from Yamato class, thus her armor is complete different form other carrier. If it's displacement do nothing for her hull classification, thus there is no light cruiser, heavy cruiser or battlecruiser, just cruiser with C for all "cruisers".

      Armoured flight deck is excuse for reason to use other class hull is also wrong, because at close the end of war, armoured flight deck become standard for all super aircraftcarrier after Midway and Shinano.

        Loading editor
    • SonyaUliana wrote: While I do advocate the term "ACV" for Armored Carrier since it's closest to the tenets of the Hull Classification system and more intuitive, "CVR" is a nice alternative.

      on 1942 Aug 5 US call Aux. carrier ACV before switching to CVE on 1943 july 15.

        Loading editor
    • Qunow wrote:
      well, in Japanese classification, Shinano is also Armored Carrier, thus it should have the same classification as Taihou in game.


      But due their size and weight, it will make Taihou is light armoured carrier and Shinano is heavy armoured carrier then.

        Loading editor
    • The Shinano was ~30m shorter than the Midway, but otherwise equivalent in dimensions as well as having nearly 1.5 times the tonnage. It could arguably warrant the CVB designation, but the Shouaku-class and virtually identical Taiho would absolutely not.

      The designation of CVA, on the other hand, was not linked with the size of the vessel. The Essex-class, following post-war modernization, used the CVA designation. The ships of the Essex-class are comparable in dimensions to the Shokaku-class and Taiho. Instead, CVA referred to the carrier using an airgroup primarly for combat, not for anti-submarine (CVS), defense (CVE), nor use of helicopters (CVHA).

      Considering that, in-game, Shoukaku and Taihou are not capable of arming for anti-submarine or carrying helicopters, the use of CVA would technically be correct. Though, by that definition, all of the game's standard fleet carriers could arguably use the CVA designation. As a fringe benefit, though CVA is meant to imply CV "Attack", it can be easily misread as CV "Armourerd". It could serve to distinguish Shoukaku and Taihou from the basic CV designation, as the in-game designation is slightly different.

      Personally, I don't see a the logic behind "CVR", as it doesn't derive from any previously-used definition. The "-R" suffix in USN usage meant "Radar", used to differentiate DE, FF, and SS which had not usually carried radar like capital ships.

        Loading editor
    • "Kadokawa never classified Taihou as anything other than an Armored Carrier (装甲空母)"

      "After talking to people I agree her rl designation should have been CV.  However, this is a game and Taihou is techincally not clasified as a CV by Developers."

      CVB_Taihou_Kai_156_Card.jpg

      The words on the right say "aircraft carrier".

      "Afterwards, supercarriers now got CVN hull classification."

      No, it's because they're nuclear-powered.

      "Though I'm not sure what even distinguishes an 'attack' aircraft carrier from any other aircraft carrier"

      That their job is to attack the enemy, I guess? In contrast to, say, escort aircraft carriers.

        Loading editor
    • TaiHao wrote:
      I'd also go for CVR.

      It's decided

        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote:

      "Though I'm not sure what even distinguishes an 'attack' aircraft carrier from any other aircraft carrier"

      That their job is to attack the enemy, I guess? In contrast to, say, escort aircraft carriers.

      Attack Aircraft Carrier, USS United States's design to carry long range heavy bomber with long range escort fighter (mostly jet fighter), allow they bombing enemy from very far. Because their primary group is long range bomber, thus usually being called "Bomber carrier". In other words, CVA or Attack Aircraft Carrier not attack any enemy, but bombing enemy bases / fleet with heavy bombers and escort fighters protect them, so their role is not engage enemy air-superiority group.

        Loading editor
    • 174.7.162.124 wrote:The designation of CVA, on the other hand, was not linked with the size of the vessel. The Essex-class, following post-war modernization, used the CVA designation. The ships of the Essex-class are comparable in dimensions to the Shokaku-class and Taiho. Instead, CVA referred to the carrier using an airgroup primarly for combat, not for anti-submarine (CVS), defense (CVE), nor use of helicopters (CVHA).

      Considering that, in-game, Shoukaku and Taihou are not capable of arming for anti-submarine or carrying helicopters, the use of CVA would technically be correct. Though, by that definition, all of the game's standard fleet carriers could arguably use the CVA designation. As a fringe benefit, though CVA is meant to imply CV "Attack", it can be easily misread as CV "Armourerd". It could serve to distinguish Shoukaku and Taihou from the basic CV designation, as the in-game designation is slightly different.

      Personally, I don't see a the logic behind "CVR", as it doesn't derive from any previously-used definition. The "-R" suffix in USN usage meant "Radar", used to differentiate DE, FF, and SS which had not usually carried radar like capital ships.

      Designation of CVA is bombing enemy base / fleet with long range heavy bombers, also is their main attack group, while jet fighters only serve as bombers's escort.

      R usually mean "radar picket", not just radar because most of surface warship already have radar as defaust from the later half of war. But still have other ships without radar picket but still got R in the hull class: ACR (Armoured Cruiser), SSNR (Attack Submarine, which has anti-submarine role), LPR (High Speed Transport) v.v...

        Loading editor
    • How about using the spirit of our BB 'subclass' fBB and calling armored carriers aCV?

        Loading editor
    • I've always wanted slow BBs to be called sBB as well but looks like that won't apply to regular carriers.

        Loading editor
    • Apart from very interesting facts which I didn't know but got to know with this thread, my vote is on CVR since my second preference is ACR and I see it has already been left out.

        Loading editor
    • CVt or CVKS

      Since Taihou, or Kai-Shoukaku is the first ship of the class, it would be fine to give them their own hull designation.

        Loading editor
    • I will bases my logic like this. If Taihou have the same rules like a regular CV, example, she can be used for expedition that requires CV's or map branching for CV's, we could just consider her as CV, in the end, she only have one unique ability, launching airplanes on moderate damage. I based this logic after Abukuma. Abukuma can act like a CLT but she is consider as CL because she still works as CL, you can use her for CL branching, CL expedition requirement. However, this logic is only based on how they works, not by the name, so if we based this on what JP call her, armored carrier, it would be wrong to call her CV but as i said, if she acts like a regular CV, we could just stick with it then, at least by the game logic.

      Nevertheless, what is important is to give her a class designation.

      1. We could stick with CVB untill Shinano to arrive, that would be the time for us to change our current CVB designation to something else.

      2. We can vote about it right now and see which designation people would prefer.

      3. Ranting about this forever and nothing will change.

      4. FACV = Fat armored carrier, just because i can.

        Loading editor
    • I didn't have problems with the current designation before. I agree with ArcticaFrost that we can continue using it till Shinano arrives, whenever that happens. That'll be enough time to come up with a replacement classification and for everyone to accept it. As for what to replace it with, I would've went with either CVA (where A stands for Armored) or ACV (same). But since CVA already means Attack Aircraft Carrier in US Navy, ACV will, I'm sure, some people will argue about that first A stands for "Auxiliary" here, so I'll go with CVR. I however, still don't understand why some people would be so hell-bent on defending the US Naval codifications, like they do, as if there is a copyright claim on them. They suggest either use them like they are or create your own ones. But I ask you, whats wrong with taking those hull classifications as basis and modifying it for the game use?

      As for Shinano I don't see a need to separate it from other standart carriers by size alone. As we already seen in the game size doesn't matter for gameplay purposes, but rather how the ship functions. So for gameplay purposes it should still be called "armored carrier" , no matter its size, unless the devs themselves come up with a completely new classification for it. Besides, IJN has never classified it as a "large carrier", only some unofficial sources do.

        Loading editor
    • ^^Taihou doesn't work for 2-2 preboss branching rule. But then one can also argue that slow BBs didn't work for a certain branching rule for autumn 2013 E4 and no one said that people had to list slow BBs differently from fast ones. Also as I said before CVB_Taihou_Kai_156_Card.jpg


      "so if we based this on what JP call her, armored carrier"

      Only in Japanese. They still call her an "aircraft carrier" in English. There's no reason why us calling her a CV would be wrong.


      ^"But I ask you, whats wrong with taking those hull classifications as basis and modifying it for the game use?"

      Well it's because you're still basing it off them. Unless you're willing to completely overhaul it such that there's much less overlap, people will continue to complain. On top of that the loading page already uses the USN hull classifications.

        Loading editor
    • Like i said. Why not aCV (with small letter 'a') which is NOT the ACV that is Auxillary Aircraft Carrier. It follows the same unofficial style of designation used for fBBs. Doesn't tread on any toes with the official Hull Classification Supremacists since the 'a' is not part of code. It just stands for armored the same way f stands for fast

      Regarding slow BBs, when it came to branching rules. It has usually been slow BBs getting the short end of the stick and had to be left out. Hence fBB alone was more than sufficient to state a need for that type of BB over the other. Usually in branching rules with slow BBs, fBBs were also allowed hence we'd just use the term 'BB' to encompass both groups. The only exception I can think of that strictly requires slow BBs is Bm4

        Loading editor
    • ACV would be okay for me as that designation got replaced for CVE. So in one way ACV is free to use.

        Loading editor
    • The thing is everyone types FBB with capital F and not fBB. Some people are so damn lazy that even cba to press Shift a couple of times, so they'll type either ACV or acv which will lead to even more confusion.

        Loading editor
    • ^Seeing that there is a case where slow BBs are allowed but fast BBs aren't, I say that slow BBs should be classified as such, too. Making them sBB should be officially done on the wikia.

        Loading editor
    • And what do we have left? No BB? There must be a standard.

        Loading editor
    • Both slow BBs and fast BBs are collectively called BBs. Not too hard a concept to grasp.

        Loading editor
    • Slow battleships has a broad meaning which inlcude BBVs (Fusou, Ise class) and regular BBs (Nagato, Yamato class). FBB is distinguished for branching purposes only. Whats next? Separate slow CVL from fast CVL?

      Btw, I keep seeing this XBB class in Shiplist in KC3 Kai Strategy Room. Is this used for Yamato-class or is it unused? I know Paradox games like Hearts of Iron use SHBB (super-heavy battleship) to indicate Yamato-class and the cancelled Montana-class, but it's just them as far as I know.

        Loading editor
    • Listen on yourself, think really hard right now, this is a game, we already have the FBB as designation. Make another one, sBB rend the designation BB useless. End of this. I will talk with some people and see if we can agree to a vote about CV Designation. That might be our only way to settle this down once for all.

        Loading editor
    • I hope you don't mean vote on BB designations, because there's really nothing to vote about there. But rather the "Armored carrier" issue, which is the topic here.

        Loading editor
    • Archer88 wrote:
      I didn't have problems with the current designation before. I agree with ArcticaFrost that we can continue using it till Shinano arrives, whenever that happens. That'll be enough time to come up with a replacement classification and for everyone to accept it. As for what to replace it with, I would've went with either CVA (where A stands for Armored) or ACV (same). But since CVA already means Attack Aircraft Carrier in US Navy, ACV will, I'm sure, some people will argue about that first A stands for "Auxiliary" here, so I'll go with CVR. I however, still don't understand why some people would be so hell-bent on defending the US Naval codifications, like they do, as if there is a copyright claim on them. They suggest either use them like they are or create your own ones. But I ask you, whats wrong with taking those hull classifications as basis and modifying it for the game use?

      As for Shinano I don't see a need to separate it from other standart carriers by size alone. As we already seen in the game size doesn't matter for gameplay purposes, but rather how the ship functions. So for gameplay purposes it should still be called "armored carrier" , no matter its size, unless the devs themselves come up with a completely new classification for it. Besides, IJN has never classified it as a "large carrier", only some unofficial sources do.


      If size or displacement don't matter, so we don't need seperate Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser or Battlercruiser either, just Cruiser for all of them, because their role are "cruisers". When you are using USN hull code for CV, BBV and other stuff, you must follow it standard, and don't smiple say "don't care because this is Japanese game", you can create new one when USN hull code don't has, but can't just misuse or overlap the code, as same as using meteric/imperial units but using in your own way and say "I don't care, I'm not French or British either. While USN hull code care more size and displacement than armoured or unarmoured, because that just upgrade for ship, those upgrade don't chage role of the ship or size, displacement.

        Loading editor
    • There's an unused hull designation "CVV" for medium sized carriers.

      There was also "CVG" for "Flight deck Cruiser", although we call them CAV here.

        Loading editor
    • ^^^"Slow battleships has a broad meaning which inlcude BBVs"

      You mean slow BBVs. If by some chance fast BBVs appear in the future, you know the drill.

      "FBB is distinguished for branching purposes only."

      That's not what I was told last time; they were also distinguished by the equipment they can carry. But that's a minor issue. So moving on.

      "Separate slow CVL from fast CVL?"

      If we have to, yes. It's just that we don't have to at the moment.

      ^^"Make another one, sBB rend the designation BB useless."

      No? When slow or fast BB is fine, you still use BB. Only If only fast BB is allowed, then you use fBB, and only if only slow BB is allowed, then use sBB. How is this hard to understand?

      But fine, we'll just end it here for now and let the others decide since clearly neither of us is going to budge on this point.

      ^"I hope you don't mean vote on BB designations, because there's really nothing to vote about there."

      It probably will because the discussion derailed to this extent. But again, moving on.

      "But rather the "Armored carrier" issue, which is the topic here."

      And my stand shall now be that they be collectively called CV, and if they need to be differeniated, "unarmoured CV" and "armoured CV".

        Loading editor
    • Whoops, add ^^ to each of the above posts.

      Also

      ""CVG" for "Flight deck Cruiser""

      First time I've heard of that. Source?

        Loading editor
    • 115.77.219.254 wrote:


      If size or displacement don't matter, so we don't need seperate Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser or Battlercruiser either, just Cruiser for all of them, because their role are "cruisers". When you are using USN hull code for CV, BBV and other stuff, you must follow it standard, and don't smiple say "don't care because this is Japanese game", you can create new one when USN hull code don't has, but can't just misuse or overlap the code, as same as using meteric/imperial units but using in your own way and say "I don't care, I'm not French or British either. While USN hull code care more size and displacement than armoured or unarmoured, because that just upgrade for ship, those upgrade don't chage role of the ship or size, displacement.

      You again? I already made it clear that I only have my swords to give you now, as there's nothing I can convince you with. And you misunderstood my statement, because I meant that there's no difference between how ships of different sizes of the same class act in game. Armored Carrier Taihou has the ability to launch planes while at "chuuha", while the to be implemented Armored Carrier Shinano would have the very same ability. Also, there are no battlecruisers in this game, yet.

      Enough of this pointless discussion, lets just vote already.

        Loading editor
    • Maybe he mistake, CVG for Aircraft Carrier equip Guide Missile. While Flight Desk Cuiser was never become real project in war, just stay on paper and got no interesting by Navy, thus there is no hull code for it.

        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote:

      ^"I hope you don't mean vote on BB designations, because there's really nothing to vote about there."

      It probably will because the discussion derailed to this extent. But again, moving on.

      In that case you should start a separate topic. But really, you want to separate BB into different subclasses, which historically wasn't the case with US Navy as they all been classified as BB, but you want to keep all standart carriers regardless of their size, having armored deck and function classified as CV which is the direct opposite? You'll earn the ire of the many "Hull Classification Supremacists", as 202.166.14.133 politely called them, on this page.

        Loading editor
    • Archer88 wrote:
      115.77.219.254 wrote:


      If size or displacement don't matter, so we don't need seperate Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser or Battlercruiser either, just Cruiser for all of them, because their role are "cruisers". When you are using USN hull code for CV, BBV and other stuff, you must follow it standard, and don't smiple say "don't care because this is Japanese game", you can create new one when USN hull code don't has, but can't just misuse or overlap the code, as same as using meteric/imperial units but using in your own way and say "I don't care, I'm not French or British either. While USN hull code care more size and displacement than armoured or unarmoured, because that just upgrade for ship, those upgrade don't chage role of the ship or size, displacement.

      You again? I already made it clear that I only have my swords to give you now, as there's nothing I can convince you with. And you misunderstood my statement, because I meant that there's no difference between how ships of different sizes of the same class act in game. Armored Carrier Taihou has the ability to launch planes while at "chuuha", while the to be implemented Armored Carrier Shinano would have the very same ability. Also, there are no battlecruisers in this game, yet.

      Enough of this pointless discussion, lets just vote already.

      That kind of upgrade don't make them become complete new class, like give 8" gun don't make Light Cruiser become Heavy Cruiser, size and displacement is matter. Because with displacement and size of Shinano, it can carry and launch twin-engine heavy fighter or medium bombers with ease, while other carrier have trouble with twin engine planes.

      And so, if no difference between how ships of different size of class, why should divide light cruiser and heavy since they're all cruiser. Just all Cruiser for them?

      And your sword is toy sword, it won't effect, lolz.

        Loading editor
    • "But really, you want to separate BB into different subclasses, which historically wasn't the case with US Navy as they all been classified as BB, but you want to keep all standart carriers regardless of their size, having armored deck and function classified as CV which is the direct opposite?"

      wut

      I already finalised my stand to split CVs into "unarmoured CV" and "armoured CV", didn't I?

        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote:
      "But really, you want to separate BB into different subclasses, which historically wasn't the case with US Navy as they all been classified as BB, but you want to keep all standart carriers regardless of their size, having armored deck and function classified as CV which is the direct opposite?"

      wut

      I already finalised my stand to split CVs into "unarmoured CV" and "armoured CV", didn't I?


      Yes, and I don't mind that unlike that guy above us, however I would leave unarmoured CV as just CV. I do mind to introduce more battleship subclasses though. It's good as it is now.

        Loading editor
    • 115.77.219.254 wrote:

      That kind of upgrade don't make them become complete new class, like give 8" gun don't make Light Cruiser become Heavy Cruiser, size and displacement is matter.

      Funny you should mention that, as there's a real life example: Initialy Mogami class cruisers were equipped with 6" guns and classified as CL. After japanese upgraded them with 8" guns they were reclassified as CA.

      Another example: US Cleveland class CLs were larger in size and displacement then, say Aoba class CAs. So size matters, you say?

        Loading editor
    • Someone starts a poll?

        Loading editor
    • For technical purposes, let's stay away from lower case letters please...

        Loading editor
    • ^^I guess no one knows what choices to actually put in the poll.

        Loading editor
    • That's not difficult. What was mentioned here were: CVB (stay the same), CVR, ACVR, CVA, ACV, CV (don't differentiate) among others. I didn't mention lower case letters, because of Cknwg's request.

        Loading editor
    • Would help if you could add in specifics regarding the choices, such as pros and cons (eg. CVA is already used for Attack Aircraft Carrier, if CV is chosen there will be a split similar like that for BB).

        Loading editor
    • Archer88 wrote:
      115.77.219.254 wrote:

      That kind of upgrade don't make them become complete new class, like give 8" gun don't make Light Cruiser become Heavy Cruiser, size and displacement is matter.

      Funny you should mention that, as there's a real life example: Initialy Mogami class cruisers were equipped with 6" guns and classified as CL. After japanese upgraded them with 8" guns they were reclassified as CA.

      Another example: US Cleveland class CLs were larger in size and displacement then, say Aoba class CAs. So size matters, you say?


      Mogami class is Heavy Cruiser from the start, it's displacement and gun port as same as Heavy Cruiser. Because the London Treaty limit heavy cruiser, which strike hard on Japanese heavy cruiser doctrine with heavy cruiser as back bone. To dogde the treaty, Mogami equip 6" gun, reduce displacement under 9.000 tons and call it Light Cruiser, when the war broke out, Mogami were quickly re-arm with 8" since gun ports were design for 8" guns, while it's 6" was give to Yamato, also with 8" gun, Mogami's displacement increase to over 10.000 tons and become true Heavy Cruiser as it's design.

        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote:
      Whoops, add ^^ to each of the above posts.

      Also

      ""CVG" for "Flight deck Cruiser""

      First time I've heard of that. Source?

      says right there on wikipedia

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier

      CVG (proposed). Probably stood for Carrier Volair Gun or something.

      CVG (retired) is for guided missile.

        Loading editor
    • I suppose CVR will work.

      ACVR would be better if ACR is ever introduced in the future.

      Don't think CVB is appropriate, with or without Shinano.

        Loading editor
    • CV started off as an offshoot of cruiser so it should be Cruiser Voler Gun or something. But yeah I see what you're coming from.

      Also from the page for Flight deck cruiser:

      "TThe flight-deck cruiser was a proposed type of aircraft cruiser, warships combining features of aircraft carriers and light cruisers designed by the United States Navy during the period between World War I and World War II."

      which makes CVG a lighter variation of the CAVs we have now.

      Speaking of which, why is "aircraft cruiser" not standardised across the site?

        Loading editor
    • You guys are way off topic now. 

        Loading editor
    • Let's stay away from doubling up on CV as well...sorry guys. Just trying to cover our bases in case things change in the future.

      Aircraft Cruiser isn't standardized because from a long time ago Aviation Cruiser was used in the community. Why, I do not know. That was before my time.

        Loading editor
    • "Aircraft Cruiser isn't standardized"

      Well it should be. What if in the future some new ship type called "Aviation Cruiser" comes out, for example. Like if Ooyodo Kai 2 becomes one.

        Loading editor
    • I thought Aircraft Cruiser = Aviation Cruiser and it's a matter of which sounds better?

      I doubt anyone's going to do such a major naming overhaul unless the hypothethical Aviation Cruiser is actually introduced.

        Loading editor
    • At the very least be consistent. Why "Aircraft Carrying Submarine" for example when "Submarine Aircraft Carrier" is the more common use, and yet the Aircraft/Aviation Cruiser thing.

      If you want to use the names for English ship types the game uses, then stick with them at all times. If not, then discard them. Though I'd think that with the Translation Consistency thread you'd want to stick with them at all times.

      "I doubt anyone's going to do such a major naming overhaul unless the hypothethical Aviation Cruiser is actually introduced."

      Well that's a problem of the community. Actually communities in general, which means it can't be helped. Very resistant to change even if what they've been doing all along is wrong.

        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote:
      "Aircraft Cruiser isn't standardized"

      Well it should be. What if in the future some new ship type called "Aviation Cruiser" comes out, for example. Like if Ooyodo Kai 2 becomes one.

      If Ooyodo Kai Ni becomes like an aviation cruiser, then according to the pattern she most likely will become the first (and maybe last) CLV. But lets leave this for when it happens.

        Loading editor
    • I vote for CVR. I don't care about the official USN standard.

      If I think the Future event. CVR is suitable. When we have a combined fleet, later in the game.

      it will go like this: Fleet 1: 2CVR, 2 CV, 2 BB and Fleet 2: 1 CL (Abukuma), 3 DD, 1 fBB, 1 CLt

      that looks good enough, and every admiral who play Kancolle. They do understand later what is CVR. as long as they understood. Kancolle Admirals (Not a USN Navy admiral) come here for getting information about the game.

      a reminder quoted from the front page: "This wiki is a place to find English information about the game & tutorials on how to play even without knowledge of Japanese"

        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote:
      Would help if you could add in specifics regarding the choices, such as pros and cons (eg. CVA is already used for Attack Aircraft Carrier, if CV is chosen there will be a split similar like that for BB).

      CVA: Carrier, Attack (usually referred to as "Fleet Carrier" as well)

      CVB: Carrier, Large (The only designation ever used specificly for an armored carrier, all other armored carriers simply used CV) Some sources (Teitoku no Ketsudan or something) use CVB to refer to Aviation Battleships

      CVR: Created by people here, don't exist in reality

      ACVR: Likewise.


      As for the "Taihou is too small to be called CVB" issue:

      Midway: 45000t (didn't find if it's standard or full load)

      Taihou: 29770t normal, 37870t full load

      Shoukaku: 32105t deep load

      Essex (as the largest non-CVB US carrier): 31300t standard, 36960t full

      Illustrious (British armored carrier, the RN doesn't have CVB nor Armored Carrier designation): 23000t standard

      Implacable (improved Illustrious): 32630t deep load

      So here's the deal:

      1. Taihou is actually big enough to be called a CVB. As she is at least heavier (but a bit shorter) than Essex, and far bigger than Illustrious. Don't use her capacity to judge, as Taihou never actually used up her capacity and IJN aircrafts lack folding wings anyway. Allowing Taihou to be designated CVB will solve a lot of trouble, like when Illustrious is introduced.

      2. Shoukaku K2A is more of a problem, but since K2A is appearently non-historic and certainly a lot heavier than historical Shoukaku, I think we can let that go.

      So I think CVB is fine. We already invented too many non-historic and non-logical designations like CAV BBV and SSV, we don't need another if we can avoid to.

        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote:

      Very resistant to change even if what they've been doing all along is wrong.

      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.

      (As an aside, I'm looking at the box for Tamiya's late-war Mogami, which refers to it as an "Aircraft-Carrying Cruiser". Not the be-all-end-all of sources, but it's a something.)

        Loading editor
    • 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).

        Loading editor
    • ^^^You forgot to add that "CVB" actually means "large aircraft carrier".

      Also I think you're going to be screwed if the devs actually add in the Illustrious and Implacable class CVs in the future. Not a good reason if you ask me. Even more so if they also add in the Essex class as well.

      ^So remind me again how you guys separated fast and slow BBs?

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote:
      42.60.228.10 wrote:
      Would help if you could add in specifics regarding the choices, such as pros and cons (eg. CVA is already used for Attack Aircraft Carrier, if CV is chosen there will be a split similar like that for BB).
      CVA: Carrier, Attack (usually referred to as "Fleet Carrier" as well)

      CVB: Carrier, Large (The only designation ever used specificly for an armored carrier, all other armored carriers simply used CV) Some sources (Teitoku no Ketsudan or something) use CVB to refer to Aviation Battleships

      CVR: Created by people here, don't exist in reality

      ACVR: Likewise.


      As for the "Taihou is too small to be called CVB" issue:

      Midway: 45000t (didn't find if it's standard or full load)

      Taihou: 29770t normal, 37870t full load

      Shoukaku: 32105t deep load

      Essex (as the largest non-CVB US carrier): 31300t standard, 36960t full

      Illustrious (British armored carrier, the RN doesn't have CVB nor Armored Carrier designation): 23000t standard

      Implacable (improved Illustrious): 32630t deep load

      So here's the deal:

      1. Taihou is actually big enough to be called a CVB. As she is at least heavier (but a bit shorter) than Essex, and far bigger than Illustrious. Don't use her capacity to judge, as Taihou never actually used up her capacity and IJN aircrafts lack folding wings anyway. Allowing Taihou to be designated CVB will solve a lot of trouble, like when Illustrious is introduced.

      2. Shoukaku K2A is more of a problem, but since K2A is appearently non-historic and certainly a lot heavier than historical Shoukaku, I think we can let that go.

      So I think CVB is fine. We already invented too many non-historic and non-logical designations like CAV BBV and SSV, we don't need another if we can avoid to.

      Even if drop limit of CVB to 45.000 tons when compare with modern Supercarrier (60.000+ tons), and 45.000 tons is mininal require, Taihou is still not reach that require since still lack 6.000 tons even if full load in displacement matter with Midway 45.000 tons and Shinano 65.000 tons (standard displacement). Compare to size and number of aircraft, Midway able to carry 130 aircrafts, lenght 295m, wide 36.9m; and Shinano able to carry around 120 aircrafts with lenght 265.8m, wide 36.3m; while Taihou only can carry 65 aircrafts, lenght 260.3m, wide 27.4. Both CVB are far head from Taihou, if compare to size, number of aircraft and displacement, Taihou is even smaller than Akagi and Kaga abit.


      Note, CVB term is for large aircraft carrier, not use only for armoured aircraft carrier, just because they are big enough to carry twin-engine aircraft, or later jet fighter, they need armoured flight deck for able to bear the force of those planes when landing, normal wood deck is not strong enough. CVB is term of displacement as heavy as Midway above, not for some kind of armoured or unarmoured flight deck, US or UK never use flight deck as feature to class them and create new brand of hull classification, CVB can use unarmoured flight deck and still be called CVB as long as heavy as 45.000 tons as minimal; otherwise, even the carrier using armoured flight deck but not able to reach minimum 45.000 tons, it is still not CVB.

        Loading editor
    • Note, BBV is a real hull code, not made up.

        Loading editor
    • Midway displaced over 67,000 tons fully loaded (at least according to here: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cv-41.htm).  I just want to be clear:  She was a lot bigger than Taihou.

        Loading editor
    • 115.77.219.254 wrote:

      Even if drop limit of CVB to 45.000 tons when compare with modern Supercarrier (60.000+ tons), and 45.000 tons is mininal require,

      Actually I'm suggesting dropping limit to 37000, as in "anything bigger than Essex"

      @42.60.228.10 Yes, I did mention that CVB is large carrier, or more presicely, "Carrier, Large". Read again.

      @115.77.219.254 No, BBV is not on this page: 

      https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hull_classification_symbol&redirect=no


      Remember, CV stands for Carrier Vessel, so BBV would be "Battleship Vessel" in this logic, which is serously nonsense.

        Loading editor
    • BBV is on this page:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hull_classifications#B

      And the very link you gave says that Carrier does NOT stand for "Carrier Vessel". It's an offshoot of cruiser classification so it actually means "Cruiser Voler", Voler being French for "to fly".

        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote:

      Also I think you're going to be screwed if the devs actually add in the Illustrious and Implacable class CVs in the future. Not a good reason if you ask me. Even more so if they also add in the Essex class as well.

      ^So remind me again how you guys separated fast and slow BBs?

      Essex was not an armored carrier. Her armor was applied on the hangar deck, not flight deck.

      One last thing:

      You guys do realize that the definition of "Large/Heavy" shifts from era to era, and from country to country, don't you? Why are we using the Yanks' standard on the Japs' ships for starters?

      For USN, only Midway is considered "Large Carrier", but for RN, Illustrious/Implacable is already the biggest thing they have in the whole damn war, why can't they call them "Large Carriers"?

      And IJN? The devs already used the term "large carrier" on Shoukaku (and previously, on Kaga in the library), in case if anyone missed. I have to say that the problem never even existed.

        Loading editor
    • Essex was not armoured, yes, but she was bigger than armoured Illustrious and Implacable. She'd be more of an actual CVB than they would.

      "Why are we using the Yanks' standard on the Japs' ships for starters?"

      Unless you want to be horribly inconsistent, this kind of thing is inevitable. Not to mention that if the devs are going to add in ships from all navies, they're going to have to deal with that, too.

        Loading editor
    • Kevadu wrote:
      Midway displaced over 67,000 tons fully loaded (at least according to here: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cv-41.htm).  I just want to be clear:  She was a lot bigger than Taihou.

      Check her armament, that's her displacement in post-war configuration.

      Well, Midway itself IS a post-war stuff anyway. Like I said, different era/nations have different definitions for "large".

        Loading editor
    • Implacable/Illustrious wouldn't be considered CVBs in any case; the CVB tag would have been given to Malta-class carriers which were planned to have over 50k ton displacement before they were cancelled in 1945.

        Loading editor
    • 119.56.124.74 wrote:
      BBV is on this page:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hull_classifications#B

      And the very link you gave says that Carrier does NOT stand for "Carrier Vessel". It's an offshoot of cruiser classification so it actually means "Cruiser Voler", Voler being French for "to fly".

      Which means that things on this page is NOT limited to the US classification. For this reason I doubt the credibility of this page.

      And, so CV actually means Aviation Cruiser at the beginning, lol. Thanks for the heads-up anyway.

      "Unless you want to be horribly inconsistent..."

      We are consistent, we categorize ships the way their respective owners did. IJN said Shoukaku is CVB (large carrier), so she was a CVB; USN said Essex is not, so she wasn't; RN didn't say anything about Illustrious, so it's up to us. We don't categorize IJN ships the American way, nor the other way around.

      Mogami? Well, IJN considered her to be a CA anyway, they just faked her to be a CL.

        Loading editor
    • 119.56.120.233 wrote:
      Implacable/Illustrious wouldn't be considered CVBs in any case; the CVB tag would have been given to Malta-class carriers which were planned to have over 50k ton displacement before they were cancelled in 1945.

      If they ever existed, yes.

      Here's the deal, the statement "Implacable/Illustrious wouldn't be considered CVBs in any case" stands entirely on the assumption that we do not accept CVB to mean armored carriers. But that is still being discussed now.

        Loading editor
    • 115.77.219.254 wrote:


      If size or displacement don't matter, so we don't need seperate Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser or Battlercruiser either, just Cruiser for all of them, because their role are "cruisers". 

      Cruisers are NOT seperated by displacements but by gun calibers, I mentioned Ooyodo being heavier than Furutaka. They are also VERY different in roles. BC is used as just a faster, weaker BB, CA put more efforts on torpedoes (unless if your torpedo technology sucks like the USN), CL are used more on leading DD fleets (all),  ASW (Japan), as a long-range patrol (UK) or genarally as fleet escorts.

      Light carriers' definition also shifts from nation to nation, to the Japanese they are slower, fleet-defence carriers (and yes, there's little to no differnce between CVL and CVE to the Japanese); to the Americans they are cheaper fleet carriers that can still go with the big carriers; to the British they are just cheaper CVAs.

        Loading editor
    • Recap

      CVR: CV Reinforced
      ACVR: Armored CV Reinforced
      CVF: CV Future
      CVS: CV Soukou
      CVKS: CV Kai-Shoukaku
      CVV: CV (medium)
      CVB: CV (big)

      Personally, I think CVR is fine.

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote:
      115.77.219.254 wrote:

      Even if drop limit of CVB to 45.000 tons when compare with modern Supercarrier (60.000+ tons), and 45.000 tons is mininal require,

      Actually I'm suggesting dropping limit to 37000, as in "anything bigger than Essex"

      @42.60.228.10 Yes, I did mention that CVB is large carrier, or more presicely, "Carrier, Large". Read again.

      @115.77.219.254 No, BBV is not on this page: 

      https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hull_classification_symbol&redirect=no


      Remember, CV stands for Carrier Vessel, so BBV would be "Battleship Vessel" in this logic, which is serously nonsense.


      That is your own drop, not apply for USN, If not I can drop to 1 tons on my own, lolz. Also, CVB with B for Large, not Armoured Flight Deck, there are more Flight Desk which is unarmoured or armoured for to be classified, USN never design all CVB use armoured flight deck from begin, but because the appear of jet fighter and tasks that need twin-engine bomber, they use armoured flight deck.

        Loading editor
    • MrDeaf wrote:
      Recap

      CVR: CV Reinforced
      ACVR: Armored CV Reinforced
      CVF: CV Future
      CVS: CV Soukou
      CVKS: CV Kai-Shoukaku
      CVV: CV (medium)
      CVB: CV (big)

      Personally, I think CVR is fine.

      I think CVS was used historically, Anti-sub or something?

      CVR is fine, too, but personally I prefer something that at least existed in history, although not completely right.

        Loading editor
    • 115.77.219.254 wrote:


      That is your own drop, not apply for USN, If not I can drop to 1 tons on my own, lolz. Also, CVB with B for Large, not Armoured Flight Deck, there are more Flight Desk which is unarmoured or armoured for to be classified, USN never design all CVB use armoured flight deck from begin, but because the appear of jet fighter and tasks that need twin-engine bomber, they use armoured flight deck.

      Why apply for USN? Apply for ourselves. That's why I suggested it.

      The ONLY CVB EVER planned by the USN is equipped with armored deck. And it was because of the need of armored deck itself, NOT heavy or jet planes. Midway-class' plan started in 1940, while USN didn't have jet for carriers until the 50's, learn your history before pulling out such garbage.

      I can see why Archer88 has such an attitude toward you now, really.

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote:
      MrDeaf wrote:
      Recap

      CVR: CV Reinforced
      ACVR: Armored CV Reinforced
      CVF: CV Future
      CVS: CV Soukou
      CVKS: CV Kai-Shoukaku
      CVV: CV (medium)
      CVB: CV (big)

      Personally, I think CVR is fine.

      I think CVS was used historically, Anti-sub or something?

      CVR is fine, too, but personally I prefer something that at least existed in history, although not completely right.

      Well, apparently "CVS" came into existence during the cold war era for ASW and is currently a retired hull classification symbol. The closest thing that fits CVS these days is DDH Hyuuga-class and DDH Izumo-class. As you can guess, those are CVH for Helicopter.

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote:
      115.77.219.254 wrote:


      If size or displacement don't matter, so we don't need seperate Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser or Battlercruiser either, just Cruiser for all of them, because their role are "cruisers". 

      Cruisers are NOT seperated by displacements but by gun calibers, I mentioned Ooyodo being heavier than Furutaka. They are also VERY different in roles. BC is used as just a faster, weaker BB, CA put more efforts on torpedoes (unless if your torpedo technology sucks like the USN), CL are used more on leading DD fleets (all),  ASW (Japan), as a long-range patrol (UK) or genarally as fleet escorts.

      Light carriers' definition also shifts from nation to nation, to the Japanese they are slower, fleet-defence carriers (and yes, there's little to no differnce between CVL and CVE to the Japanese); to the Americans they are cheaper fleet carriers that can still go with the big carriers; to the British they are just cheaper CVAs.


      Light Cruiser and Heavy Cruiser only seperated by gun caliber, yes, but only because London Treaty. When the war broke out, Heavy Cruisers were built with heavier displacement with around 15.000 tons, while Light Cruisers countinue keep at 10.000 tons and below. About their role, I don't think only CA put more effert on torpedoes, there are many CL that focus on torperdos like Kuma and Kitakami class. And their role are not very different, their majority role are still same or similiar protect carrier or commerce ships, support fleet in term of firepower, recon. JPN's light cruiser may use in other role like lead destroyer, torpero cruiser, but still also be used in common cruiser roles.

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote:
      115.77.219.254 wrote:


      That is your own drop, not apply for USN, If not I can drop to 1 tons on my own, lolz. Also, CVB with B for Large, not Armoured Flight Deck, there are more Flight Desk which is unarmoured or armoured for to be classified, USN never design all CVB use armoured flight deck from begin, but because the appear of jet fighter and tasks that need twin-engine bomber, they use armoured flight deck.

      Why apply for USN? Apply for ourselves. That's why I suggested it.

      The ONLY CVB EVER planned by the USN is equipped with armored deck. And it was because of the need of armored deck itself, NOT heavy or jet planes. Midway-class' plan started in 1940, while USN didn't have jet for carriers until the 50's, learn your history before pulling out such garbage.

      I can see why Archer88 has such an attitude toward you now, really.


      So then, why are you still use USN hull classified? Using other people stuff with your own apply? So do you want use 1m = 1 feet too?

      Do you want me lear more history? So, do you know USAAF's P-80's first flight in January of 1944? RAF also has their jet fighter first flight in Septemper 1943 is DH Vampire. And US begin their jet fighter P-80 on carrier USS Franklin D Roosevelt in October 1946. It is mean, they already planned use jet fighters on Carrier, and it long time project, not just some months-projects. I see how you and Archer 88 has such temper, lolz, too confident on your knowledged.

        Loading editor
    • Also USN begin recieved P-80s since Jun 1945, why they want those aircraft if not want to put on carrier?

        Loading editor
    • Summery, CVB is never planned because just armored deck, It was design for carry more aircraft, or heavier aircraft for long range striking, and later are jet fighters, but because heavier aricraft and jet fighter create huge force when landing, they use armoured flight deck to support them, and plus withstand more punish from emeny dive bombers, and maybe even kamikaze. Not just because "I want to have 'armoured flight deck' carrier, let design a new brand of carrier and new hull code", while UK have lot of armoured flight deck carrier and still small in displacement, and never call themself CVB because the holy "armoured flight deck".

        Loading editor
    • 115.77.219.254 wrote:


      So then, why are you still use USN hull classified? Using other people stuff with your own apply? So do you want use 1m = 1 feet too?

      Do you want me lear more history? So, do you know USAAF's P-80's first flight in January of 1944? RAF also has their jet fighter first flight in Septemper 1943 is DH Vampire. And US begin their jet fighter P-80 on carrier USS Franklin D Roosevelt in October 1946. It is mean, they already planned use jet fighters on Carrier, and it long time project, not just some months-projects. I see how you and Archer 88 has such temper, lolz, too confident on your knowledged.

      Lol to see how you lose your temper. Check your typos and grammar.

      Only 1 P-80 was ever equipped with tail hook. 1944 was 4 years later than 1940, so you are telling me that in 1940, the USN planned the CVB-41 (later named Midway) because they foresaw that they will have P-80 in 1944, LOL.

      Work on XP-80 was started in 1943, 1 year after USS Midway's ship order being made, and by the time P-80 first flew, USS Midway's construction was already under way (and no design change was made). Learn the chronological order, kid.

      Why Navy got the P-80 if they didn't want them on carriers? Don't you know that Navy had their land-based air fleet as well? US didn't have an independent Air Force until 1947.

      The Midway-class requires further remodel (SCB-110) in order be able to handle jets, otherwise even a P2V-2 Neptune will need JATO to take off (which is very harmful to the deck), and you are trying to say that they are planned partly because of jets, LOL.


      Learn the truth, Midway was planned to launch piston engine aircrafts only, their armor were for defense alone, not for jets at all. Their larger size was to compensate for the capacity lost to reinforced hull, the plan was actually purely aimed at the armored deck.

        Loading editor
    • Careful now, if i see you guys go more hostile against each other, i will have to ask both of you to leave this thread.

        Loading editor
    • "Which means that things on this page is NOT limited to the US classification."
      Just about everything there is. It's just that for some reason the French language had a lot of influence on nomenclature at the time.

      "IJN said Shoukaku is CVB (large carrier), so she was a CVB"
      And if that's the case, then even at non-Kai, Kai and Kai 2 she's a CVB. A CVB without an armoured flight deck.

      "the statement "Implacable/Illustrious wouldn't be considered CVBs in any case" stands entirely on the assumption that we do not accept CVB to mean armored carriers"
      I was talking about real life, but fine.

      "BC"
      Doesn't mean shit.

        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote: ^Seeing that there is a case where slow BBs are allowed but fast BBs aren't, I say that slow BBs should be classified as such, too. Making them sBB should be officially done on the wikia.

      They very reason why fast bb is given a special code is that when we use kongou class, V.V. class, or bismarck in game, the game will told us we are using a ship of category 8, and when we use Ise, Fusou, Yamato, Nagato it would be category 9, and if it is Ise Kai or Fusou Kai it woild be category 10.

      Archer88 wrote: Btw, I keep seeing this XBB class in Shiplist in KC3 Kai Strategy Room. Is this used for Yamato-class or is it unused? I know Paradox games like Hearts of Iron use SHBB (super-heavy battleship) to indicate Yamato-class and the cancelled Montana-class, but it's just them as far as I know.

      The original game data say thus api key is referring to Superdreadnought battleships, which is a pre-1920 concept with the official hull code for them back then is a single B. kc3kai give that XBB to avoid confusion caused by this unused code.

      Vcharng wrote:

      119.56.124.74 wrote:
      BBV is on this page:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hull_classifications#B

      And the very link you gave says that Carrier does NOT stand for "Carrier Vessel". It's an offshoot of cruiser classification so it actually means "Cruiser Voler", Voler being French for "to fly".

      Which means that things on this page is NOT limited to the US classification. For this reason I doubt the credibility of this page.

      And, so CV actually means Aviation Cruiser at the beginning, lol. Thanks for the heads-up anyway.

      "Unless you want to be horribly inconsistent..."

      We are consistent, we categorize ships the way their respective owners did. IJN said Shoukaku is CVB (large carrier), so she was a CVB; USN said Essex is not, so she wasn't; RN didn't say anything about Illustrious, so it's up to us. We don't categorize IJN ships the American way, nor the other way around.

      Mogami? Well, IJN considered her to be a CA anyway, they just faked her to be a CL.

      No one say the page is limited to USN's classification but it is true that the info on that page need double verification as CVF isn't even a code for a type of ship and instead just the programme name. And as expected, some IP user added BBV to the page after KanColle anime air. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_hull_classifications&type=revision&diff=648753647&oldid=635717034

      Also, we do not categorize ships according to how their original owner did, we classify them according to how Kadokawa did.

        Loading editor
    • "They very reason why fast bb is given a special code is that when we use kongou class, V.V. class, or bismarck in game, the game will told us we are using a ship of category 8, and when we use Ise, Fusou, Yamato, Nagato it would be category 9, and if it is Ise Kai or Fusou Kai it woild be category 10."

      Then does Taihou/Shoukaku Kai 2A use a different code from, say, Shoukaku Kai 2?

      "kc3kai give that XBB to avoid confusion caused by this unused code."

      So when they come out will you switch them back to B?

        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote: "They very reason why fast bb is given a special code is that when we use kongou class, V.V. class, or bismarck in game, the game will told us we are using a ship of category 8, and when we use Ise, Fusou, Yamato, Nagato it would be category 9, and if it is Ise Kai or Fusou Kai it woild be category 10."

      Then does Taihou/Shoukaku Kai 2A use a different code from, say, Shoukaku Kai 2?

      "kc3kai give that XBB to avoid confusion caused by this unused code."

      So when they come out will you switch them back to B?

      1. yes, taihou and Shoukaku Kai Ni A's code is different from other carriers like regular Shoukaku
      2. Currently we use B in the wiki for its placeholder. For KC3Kai you should ask their developers.
        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote:

      "BC"
      Doesn't mean shit.

      Ah, you just mentioned an interesting thing, I was just about to ask that Vietnamese guy (from his IP) what hull symbol he would use on a Battlecruiser. I don't quite believe that he has the guts to use CC (correct USN symbol, but nearly no one else is using). But anyway, I think we've spent more than enough time and space on this thread to prove what kind of people he is.

        Loading editor
    • "yes, taihou and Shoukaku Kai Ni A's code is different from other carriers like regular Shoukaku"

      Then seeing that we have a precedent, why are we even arguing all this?

      "Currently we use B in the wiki for its placeholder."

      Good enough. I don't bother with KC3 anyway.

        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote: "yes, taihou and Shoukaku Kai Ni A's code is different from other carriers like regular Shoukaku"

      Then seeing that we have a precedent, why are we even arguing all this?

      "Currently we use B in the wiki for its placeholder."

      Good enough. I don't bother with KC3 anyway.

      This topic is about what code should taihou use and is then extended to shoukaku kai ni A. There are no precedent on what english letters we can use to refer to Armored Carrier in simplistic manner.

        Loading editor
    • The precedent I was referring to was to call fast battleships fast BB. Same thing here, just call them armoured CV and be done with it.

        Loading editor
    • Qunow wrote:

      And as expected, some IP user added BBV to the page after KanColle anime air. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_hull_classifications&type=revision&diff=648753647&oldid=635717034

      Also, we do not categorize ships according to how their original owner did, we classify them according to how Kadokawa did.

      LOL, so now we know that KC is actually doing damage to people's WWII naval knowledge.

      Yea, I guess you're right. We should do it the KDKW way, and that would mean that "is Taihou too small to be called CVB" is not important, because we know that the KDKW categorization will definitely divert from the historical one at some point.

      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.

        Loading editor
    • CVR is good. Or we can still call it CVB until Shinano arrive. Will she get different classification in her respective card, or just classified CV or same as Taihou.

      This game is based on Japanesse ship, IJN have own classification wrote in Kanji. We here using USN hull for made easier to be understand and heir hull classification is not FIXED , they add and remove each time they need.


      I really want to ignore those 115.77.219.254 and 42.60.228.10 , what they do is not discussion only throwing argument at everyone.

        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote:
      The precedent I was referring to was to call fast battleships fast BB. Same thing here, just call them armoured CV and be done with it.

      Hey, you gave me an idea.

      How about we stop trying to completely stick with only letters? Like "Fast Battleship -> Fast BB -> F-BB" and "Armored Aircraft Carrier -> Armored CV -> A-CV"? It's just one more hyphen you know. If one wants to refer to both fast and slow battleships, he could use "(F)BB", and likewise "(A)CV" for both armored and unarmored standard carrers.

      The thing is, F-BB and A-CV are not wrong even for the most strict military fans. For those who don't care and just want to simplify all the way, they can just say FBB and ACV, ppl can still understand; for hardcore military fans who wouldn't mind wasting their lives on typing, they can insist on Fast BB and Armored CV; for those in between, F-BB and A-CV.

        Loading editor
    • "what they do is not discussion only throwing argument at everyone"

      My suggestion is simple: like we use slow and fast BB when we had to differentiate them, we use regular and armoured CV here.

      I have no idea why nobody could understand it, so it's been tough trying to explain things I didn't think needed explaining.

        Loading editor
    • As someone who used to type "fast-speed BB" whenever he could, I like Vcharng's idea.

        Loading editor
    • In add of Vharng idea, A stands to much word imo, Ar-CV seem better). but better this noted as abbreviation, not imaginary hull classification.

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote:
      115.77.219.254 wrote:


      So then, why are you still use USN hull classified? Using other people stuff with your own apply? So do you want use 1m = 1 feet too?

      Do you want me lear more history? So, do you know USAAF's P-80's first flight in January of 1944? RAF also has their jet fighter first flight in Septemper 1943 is DH Vampire. And US begin their jet fighter P-80 on carrier USS Franklin D Roosevelt in October 1946. It is mean, they already planned use jet fighters on Carrier, and it long time project, not just some months-projects. I see how you and Archer 88 has such temper, lolz, too confident on your knowledged.

      Lol to see how you lose your temper. Check your typos and grammar.

      Only 1 P-80 was ever equipped with tail hook. 1944 was 4 years later than 1940, so you are telling me that in 1940, the USN planned the CVB-41 (later named Midway) because they foresaw that they will have P-80 in 1944, LOL.

      Work on XP-80 was started in 1943, 1 year after USS Midway's ship order being made, and by the time P-80 first flew, USS Midway's construction was already under way (and no design change was made). Learn the chronological order, kid.

      Why Navy got the P-80 if they didn't want them on carriers? Don't you know that Navy had their land-based air fleet as well? US didn't have an independent Air Force until 1947.

      The Midway-class requires further remodel (SCB-110) in order be able to handle jets, otherwise even a P2V-2 Neptune will need JATO to take off (which is very harmful to the deck), and you are trying to say that they are planned partly because of jets, LOL.


      Learn the truth, Midway was planned to launch piston engine aircrafts only, their armor were for defense alone, not for jets at all. Their larger size was to compensate for the capacity lost to reinforced hull, the plan was actually purely aimed at the armored deck.

      Midway only laid down in October 1943 and P-80's first flight in January 1944 and P-80 project was begin at early of 1943, the time to laid down 3 year after the planned, it don't mean they don't change the plan, in war, plans are changed rapidly, even many under-building warship were changed and covertted depend on war, example: Shinano, under countruct as battleship, and then covert to aircraft carrier when IJN want more carrier.

      P-80s were give to USN for not just stand in land-base, that why at least 1 P-80 begin testing on Roosevel. Nothing everything perfect at beginning, after many test and analyzed, Midway got upgrade for better carry jet fighter, and that don't make they don't built for jet.

        Loading editor
    • Just curious. What is the problem with adding lower case letters for the class designation acronyms? Any technical details here?

      Why can't we keep official USN hull classifications upper case, and tackle on the fictional part in lower case? They're all imaginary hull classifcations which we, the fans, made up. It may also help differentiate between the real and fan created hull classes better.

      CAv, fBB, CLp, (aCV)

        Loading editor
    • I think people don't like distinguishing things by capitalization because a lot of people are too lazy to capitalize properly anyway...

      That said, it was mentioned earlier in this thread (can't remember by whom, too long...) that while the code ACV was used to refer to 'auxilliary carriers' that is kind of an obsolete designation that was essentially replaced by CVE. In which case I don't really have a problem with re-using it...ACV (for 'armored carrier' now) seems like the simplest, most intuitive choice. Is it correct? No. Are any of the suggestions here correct? No. The whole problem is that there is no USN code for armored carriers in the first place.

      And if we don't want to reuse another code that already means something else then we shouldn't be using CVB either. The only choice would be to make up something totally new, which I guess is where the CVR suggestion came from but I don't find that very intuitive.


      Vcharng wrote:
      ...so you are telling me that in 1940, the USN planned the CVB-41 (later named Midway)...

      Fun fact: Midway was not designated a CVB until a few months after her completion.  For the first few months of her life and certainly throughout her entire construction she was simply designated a CV.  It was only later that people decided that her size warranted a new designation.  It certainly wasn't because they suddenly realized she had an armored flight deck, seeing how she was designed with one in mind from the very start.

        Loading editor
    • I propose yet another hull: CV2

      2, because Taihou's initial luck is 2.

        Loading editor
    • @Racoontail: Lower case letters are easy to mistakenly type. No-one uses fBB, if you pay attention around here, and it's highly likely to stay that way. Users are also likely to ignore the capitalization and then complain when they can't find anything (hey, it already happened with zwei/drei).

      Mediawiki also doesn't handle lower case letters as the first character of a filename well so that's a problem.

        Loading editor
    • Qunow wrote:


      Archer88 wrote: Btw, I keep seeing this XBB class in Shiplist in KC3 Kai Strategy Room. Is this used for Yamato-class or is it unused? I know Paradox games like Hearts of Iron use SHBB (super-heavy battleship) to indicate Yamato-class and the cancelled Montana-class, but it's just them as far as I know.

      The original game data say thus api key is referring to Superdreadnought battleships, which is a pre-1920 concept with the official hull code for them back then is a single B. kc3kai give that XBB to avoid confusion caused by this unused code.

      Finally, someone answered my question. Thank you!

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote:
      Check your typos and grammar.

      This. I really wish Mister Anon #115 would learn proper English before attempting to teach proper History. My eyes are bleeding reading his comments and I'm not even a native English-speaker.

        Loading editor
    • LoL You guys are still at it? Lets just call the standart carrier CV and be done with it. Or use Vcharng's idea (I thought of it by coincidence myself) and add A with a hyphen or brackets.

        Loading editor
    • 42.60.228.10 wrote: "what they do is not discussion only throwing argument at everyone"

      My suggestion is simple: like we use slow and fast BB when we had to differentiate them, we use regular and armoured CV here.

      I have no idea why nobody could understand it, so it's been tough trying to explain things I didn't think needed explaining.

      As doing so would mean lacking the capability to simply say I have send a fleet with 2CVR4CA to 2-2 or anything similar, and also the current system implemented in the wiki mandate the need of using these type of shortened alphabetic code in places like fleet composition template while lacking the compatibility and undesired to give two different ship types (in game data sense) a same code.

      Archer88 wrote: LoL You guys are still at it? Lets just call the standart carrier CV and be done with it. Or use Vcharng's idea (I thought of it by coincidence myself) and add A with a hyphen or brackets.

      see the and also part in my respond to 42.60 in this post

        Loading editor
    • 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)

        Loading editor
    • Ckwng wrote:
      @Racoontail: Lower case letters are easy to mistakenly type. No-one uses fBB, if you pay attention around here, and it's highly likely to stay that way. Users are also likely to ignore the capitalization and then complain when they can't find anything (hey, it already happened with zwei/drei).

      Mediawiki also doesn't handle lower case letters as the first character of a filename well so that's a problem.

      I guess I'm "no-one" then... ;P

        Loading editor
    • Archer88 wrote:
      Vcharng wrote:
      Check your typos and grammar.
      This. I really wish Mister Anon #115 would learn proper English before attempting to teach proper History. My eyes are bleeding reading his comments and I'm not even a native English-speaker.


      Losing in knownlegde, and they turn attack to English skill, lolz.

        Loading editor
    • Kevadu wrote:

      Vcharng wrote:
      ...so you are telling me that in 1940, the USN planned the CVB-41 (later named Midway)...

      Fun fact: Midway was not designated a CVB until a few months after her completion.  For the first few months of her life and certainly throughout her entire construction she was simply designated a CV.  It was only later that people decided that her size warranted a new designation.  It certainly wasn't because they suddenly realized she had an armored flight deck, seeing how she was designed with one in mind from the very start.

      Actually, from the very beginning the Midway-class (not the ship) was called "CVB-41-class" as a project name, that's what I was referring to.

      As for Anon #115, he seriously forgot about the fact that Midway was completed without a single catapult. For a carrier to be completed like this, there's no way she was designed with any jets in mind whatsoever. Too bad I can't punch him in the face for the peacefulness of the thread, because I'd really love to.

      (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Midway_(CV-41)#/media/File:USS_Midway_(CVB-41)_after_commissioning.jpg)

      One more thing, he mentioned P-80's project start at 1943, so a delay from 1940 to 1943 because of a project that started in 1943? What a laugh. The fact is, for a new ship design that lacks compatibility from its predecessor (Midway was originally based on Essex, but later became a brand-new design in order to not sacrificing aircraft capacity) , 3 years is just a normally required time for the design job, there's no delay. For example, basic concept for Yamato is done in 1934, but the construction started in late 1937 (and completed in December 1941)

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • One more trivia:

      The forward flight deck of an armored carrier at that time (where jets will actually "burn" the deck) was unarmored, aft flight deck (where heavy planes hit the ship) was unarmored as well.

      I think the problem here was that we were mis-educated by KC staffs, who stated that an armored deck comes with heavy/jet aircraft compatibility.

        Loading editor
    • ^^Wait, no "regular/armoured CV" option which would be analogous with "slow/fast BB"?

        Loading editor
    • 119.56.120.90 wrote:
      ^^Wait, no "regular/armoured CV" option which would be analogous with "slow/fast BB"?

      You mean when you want to refer to both regular and armored CV? 

      For the CVR proposal, the solution is CV(R); for CVB it's CV(B), for my proposal it's (A)CV. Just like (F)BB referring to both slow and fast BB.

        Loading editor
    • Vcharng wrote:
      119.56.120.90 wrote:
      ^^Wait, no "regular/armoured CV" option which would be analogous with "slow/fast BB"?
      You mean when you want to refer to both regular and armored CV? 

      For the CVR proposal, the solution is CV(R); for CVB it's CV(B), for my proposal it's (A)CV. Just like (F)BB referring to both slow and fast BB.

      Hmm your hyphen idea probably works better than brackets. We're already using brackets for things like CA(V), CV(L), BB(V) to indicate that either can be used. The 2-5 guide even has a (F)BB(V) lol

        Loading editor
      1. CA(V) mean CA+CAV, (F)BB(V) mean FBB+BB+BBV, so using bracket here for a new ship class code is 100% confusing.
      2. KC staff only state that Shoukaku K2A will get the ability to launch jet plane, they never say it is because she is armored carrier and they even have not talk about will Taihou get the ability to launch jet plane despite they could announce so later. Therefore it is not really fair to say they mislead people to think so at least at this point.
        Loading editor
    • Qunow wrote:
      #CA(V) mean CA+CAV, (F)BB(V) mean FBB+BB+BBV, so using bracket here for a new ship class code is 100% confusing.

      Yeah. Way to explain something that everyone knows. Do you take me for an idiot?

        Loading editor
    • While we're at it, why not argue about Re-class and its BBV designation. :)

      PS: I'll keep using CVB for armored CV until the game adds a unique ship code for large CV.

        Loading editor
    • 115.77.219.254 wrote:
      Archer88 wrote:
      Vcharng wrote:
      Check your typos and grammar.
      This. I really wish Mister Anon #115 would learn proper English before attempting to teach proper History. My eyes are bleeding reading his comments and I'm not even a native English-speaker.

      Losing in knownlegde, and they turn attack to English skill, lolz.

      There's nothing to lose here. Everything you said I already knew before or heard of at least. Your the one who wants to be historically accurate and is unable to make exceptions, though. First of all, this game is NOT historical. We can use any designations for ships as we see fit. And if the devs have to mix history with fiction to make the game more enjoyable, so be it.

        Loading editor
    • @202 i were not replying to you

      @Silfumus as she do being shown as aviation battleship in game data transmitted from server to our computer afaik.

        Loading editor
    • Re-class is an Aviation Battleship, she is a Battleship in name only. That is undisputable, sorry.

        Loading editor
    • Qunow wrote:

      They very reason why fast bb is given a special code is that when we use kongou class, V.V. class, or bismarck in game, the game will told us we are using a ship of category 8, and when we use Ise, Fusou, Yamato, Nagato it would be category 9, and if it is Ise Kai or Fusou Kai it woild be category 10.

      (...)

      Also, we do not categorize ships according to how their original owner did, we classify them according to how Kadokawa did.

      I don't have the knowledge or historic facts you all own in this thread but this comment strikes me really hard. So basically you classify according to USN hull codes but it's also dependant on how Kadokawa itself classifies the ships. You even have info about what category ingame the ship type has so, why not simply use safe USN hull codes for easy reference along with the ship category? This way it would get simplier, wiki gets their own ingame classification according to Kadokawa and it won't disturb historians about how people manipulate already stated codes.

      If I interpret Qunow info right and giving an example, Kongou class would be BB(8). Meanwhile Fusou, Yamato and Nagato Class could be classified as BB9, BB(9) or BB-9. BBV would turn to BB(10). Same would apply to CV and whatever category number they have. They don't even have to be numbers, it could be letters or whatever you make up.

      Just an idea, honestly I don't care about how they are classified as long as I know to whatever classification a kanmusu belongs to.

        Loading editor
    • Archer88 wrote:

      There's nothing to lose here. Everything you said I already knew before or heard of at least. Your the one who wants to be historically accurate and is unable to make exceptions, though. First of all, this game is NOT historical. We can use any designations for ships as we see fit. And if the devs have to mix history with fiction to make the game more enjoyable, so be it.

      What's more, everything he said is either wrong, imagined by himself, or mistakenly explained.

        Loading editor
    • BIOS-D wrote:

      I don't have the knowledge or historic facts you all own in this thread but this comment strikes me really hard. So basically you classify according to USN hull codes but it's also dependant on how Kadokawa itself classifies the ships. You even have info about what category ingame the ship type has so, why not simply use safe USN hull codes for easy reference along with the ship category? This way it would get simplier, wiki gets their own ingame classification according to Kadokawa and it won't disturb historians about how people manipulate already stated codes.

      The problem is that USN hull codes does not fit to all ships. There are ships that exists only in some navies (Panzerschiffe, torpedo cruiser, etc), are classified to different categories by different figures (D-land), or even those that have a far more popular code than USN one (Battlecruisers).

        Loading editor
    • @BIOS-D Using those numbers would be non-descriptive.

        Loading editor
    • Agree, that's what I mean with "they don't even have to be numbers". The category is a classification itself, so it shouldn't be rare to give a name based exclusively on such category. You already did it giving all category 8 as "FBB" and "BBV" to category 10. If you were to change all nomenclature in the wiki following a standard, it would be a common hull code (all agree a battleship with seaplanes is not a carrier, even the game says it's a battleship, so hence it's still a BB) followed by a letter or word that differentiates between categories. In example "BB-Fast", "BB-TypeA", "BB-V", BB-F", etc.

      But as I said it's just an idea and also off-topic, because the center of this topic is to choose over an already proposed standard about Taihou. So don't mind me, you can go on.

        Loading editor
    • http://kancolle.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:338239 a voting-post have been created.

      p.s. @BIOS-D I think we have already went through it when talking training cruiser

        Loading editor
    • 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...

        Loading editor
    • 1435712235597

      This entire fucking thread

      This is why I dislike event downtime, we 'decide' to discuss about things which ultimately has no importance to anything.
        Loading editor
    • 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?

        Loading editor
    • Alright so why isn't there a community poll like I previously asked?
      Curiosity-eyes

      I'm curious

        Loading editor
    • BatMoule wrote:
      Alright so why isn't there a community poll like I previously asked?
      Curiosity-eyes

      I'm curious

      You are not important as a newly join TTK. Sad right? But it's true. :(

        Loading editor
    • TheLenrir wrote: 
      1435712235597

      This entire fucking thread

      This is why I dislike event downtime, we 'decide' to discuss about things which ultimately has no importance to anything.

      one does not simply approve without thinking creatively... 

      We already got T that shared both Training and Torpedo, why can't Heavy and Armored share an A ? As we use it, it should become commonly known, or do we need to discover a new, sounds cool, maybe suitable much hull code? Please make it simple, and poll where?

        Loading editor
    • TheLenrir wrote:
      1435712235597

      This entire fucking thread

      Not just ONE thread LOL

        Loading editor
    • BatMoule wrote:

      Alright so why isn't there a community poll like I previously asked?
      Curiosity-eyes

      I'm curious

      Sorry for late reply, but the poll function provided by wikia cannot let us check who voted which and thus it is possible to be affected by people abusibg the system to cast multiple vote.

        Loading editor
    • Some people, just some people.

        Loading editor
    • From the looks of how the poll is going, it's looks like we're going to need another poll about which collective term to use for CVR with CVs and CVLs. Will it be CV(LR) or CV(RL) pr CV(L)(R) CV(R)(L) or 'CV(L) and CV(R)'?

      I would really prefer if people thought about the functional consequences of each option. A-CV to (A)CV(L) would honestly be so much easier and follows our current (F)BB(V) for easier understanding. Well, I guess expecting people in this community to think is probably expecting too much

        Loading editor
    • "seaplane carrier (CVS"

      And I thought I've seen everthing.

        Loading editor
    • CVR or ACV (A-CV). I'm fine with either.

        Loading editor
    • 202.166.14.133 wrote:
      From the looks of how the poll is going, it's looks like we're going to need another poll about which collective term to use for CVR with CVs and CVLs. Will it be CV(LR) or CV(RL) pr CV(L)(R) CV(R)(L) or 'CV(L) and CV(R)'?

      I would really prefer if people thought about the functional consequences of each option. A-CV to (A)CV(L) would honestly be so much easier and follows our current (F)BB(V) for easier understanding. Well, I guess expecting people in this community to think is probably expecting too much

      There are no armored light carriers. Neither in the game, nor in real life (as far as I know). Thus, CVLR is not needed.

        Loading editor
    • I would go with CVR, but what happens when the devs inevitably release a light carrier that can shell while chuuha?  CVLR?

      At least with ACV you can then transition to ACVL.

      Someday an FBBV might come out as well :V

        Loading editor
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_classification_symbol#Aircraft_carrier_type

      There are examples like CVAN, CVHA, CVHE. Considering how sub-class letters are usually suffixes, should it be BBF/BBFV?

      I think that for compositions one can say something like 2CVR 2CV 2FBB, but use "Carrier" (http://dic.pixiv.net/a/%E7%A9%BA%E6%AF%8D%E5%A8%98), "Standard Carrier" (http://dic.pixiv.net/a/%E6%AD%A3%E8%A6%8F%E7%A9%BA%E6%AF%8D, don't count Taihou as one :/), "Battleship", "Slow Battleship", etc. for more broader classes when describing branching and such (we can count CVR as Standard Carrier and only specify exceptions like 2-2 branching).

        Loading editor
    • 202.166.14.133 wrote: From the looks of how the poll is going, it's looks like we're going to need another poll about which collective term to use for CVR with CVs and CVLs. Will it be CV(LR) or CV(RL) pr CV(L)(R) CV(R)(L) or 'CV(L) and CV(R)'?

      I would really prefer if people thought about the functional consequences of each option. A-CV to (A)CV(L) would honestly be so much easier and follows our current (F)BB(V) for easier understanding. Well, I guess expecting people in this community to think is probably expecting too much

      CV(L/R) or CV(/L/R) is enough. It is just what you would see in daily English environment. And 50% chance dev will add CVE in next half year anyway.

        Loading editor
    • UvebeenHAZED wrote:
      BatMoule wrote:
      Alright so why isn't there a community poll like I previously asked?
      Curiosity-eyes

      I'm curious

      You are not important as a newly join TTK. Sad right? But it's true. :(

      Lmao I said "like i previously asked" because I firstly asked the question on the wrong thread, not because I was ignored. Besides I'm HQ101, not exactly what I would call a "newly join TTK".

        Loading editor
    • I like how everyone immediately goes to wikipedia for reference. Not that I'm the one to talk though. All right, all right! I didn't check those particular pages in detail before.

        Loading editor
    • Actually there were a quick discussion happened about what code should Fast BB use when this wikia implement Lua. Opinion back then was mostly: BB: collision, BC: inaccurate, CC: Too far off, FastBB/BB Fast/BB-Fast/BBFast: too long for a certain table, FBB: when sorting ship type alphabetically, it would not appear next to BB. But then the FBB one is still selected.

        Loading editor
    • Qunow wrote:

      CV(L/R) or CV(/L/R) is enough. It is just what you would see in daily English environment. And 50% chance dev will add CVE in next half year anyway.

      Oh look whos deciding things for himself now. Lol easy to say for someone that doesn't write guides. When CVE joins the mix, we're definitely going to see inconsistent term usage like CV(E/L/R), CV(L/R/E) which is hella ugly. Then it'll just be another FAQ that gets asked every other day. But why should a non-frontliner care anyway. It's not as if you're the one using the terms on a regular basis in frontlining

        Loading editor
    • caring for should it be E/L/R or L/R/E is like caring about should it be BB/CA/CV or CV/CA/BB ....

        Loading editor
    • CVA for the following reasons:

      1. If Shinano appears she'll be CVB. There's a need to keep them distinct in the event that she has her own ship class. If she shares the class names of the other carriers instead we can call her CVA/CV instead. When the time comes. Plus, CV CVA CVB makes for a nice alphabetical progression. In displacement terms calling a Shoukaku-class a CVB is as absurd as calling a Tenryuu class a Heavy Cruiser.

      2. CVA has a legacy usage in US Navy as Attack Carriers, and the high combat stats (and relatively low plane slots for air superiority) for both Taihou and Shoukaku Kaini A so far are consistent with this usage.

      3. It's intuitive that CVA can be thought of as 'CV Armoured' like how CVL can be thought of as 'CV Light' in English; the Japanese term 装甲空母 also contains the same A (Kou/甲) that is also present in the name of Shoukaku Kaini A, since 装甲 refers to armour regardless of which language is used. If Zuikaku's remodel also has an armoured carrier variant, it will also be referred to as Zuikaku Kaini A. The A is in the name itself of the ship that belongs to the class.

      Taihou was never a CVB and should never have been assigned the CVB tag.

      P.S. For those stating that they should all be merged into CV because they share common routing, this is wrong becuase 1. In Map 2-2 EF route, armoured carriers do NOT share the same routing as standard carriers; 2. The game system itself classifies armoured carriers and standard carriers separately in the inventory list.

      In terms of cross-language validity, useability, historical correlation with USN terms and compatibility with future updates, CVA stands as superior to all the currently proposed alternatives (as opposed to the BC/CC/FBB debate, which was a useability vs historical accuracy one where some tradeoff actually had to be made). It's surprising CVR is leading the current vote count when it 1. Never existed in USN tags AFAIK; 2. Is not intuitive; 3. Doesn't correspond to the Japanese terms anywhere near as well.

        Loading editor
    • Hayashi H wrote: CVA for the following reasons:

      1. If Shinano appears she'll be CVB. There's a need to keep them distinct in the event that she has her own ship class. If she shares the class names of the other carriers instead we can call her CVA/CV instead. When the time comes. Plus, CV CVA CVB makes for a nice alphabetical progression.

      2. CVA has a legacy usage in US Navy as Attack Carriers, and the high combat stats (and relatively low plane slots for air superiority) for both Taihou and Shoukaku Kaini A so far are consistent with this usage.

      3. It's intuitive that CVA can be thought of as 'CV Armoured' like how CVL can be thought of as 'CV Light' in English; the Japanese term 装甲空母 also contains the same A (Kou/甲) that is also present in the name of Shoukaku Kaini A, since 装甲 refers to armour. Regardless of which language is used 

      Taihou was never a CVB and should never have been assigned the CVB tag.

      P.S. For those stating that they should all be merged into CV because they share common routing, this is wrong becuase 1. In Map 2-2 EF route, armoured carriers do NOT share the same routing as standard carriers; 2. The game system itself classifies armoured carriers and standard carriers separately in the inventory list.

      I object to CVA. By your definition of CVA, I would argue that Hiryuu kai ni would be classified as CVA due to high firepower and plane slot distribution. However, we need a classification that distinguishes carriers by their ability to attack in chuuha as well as routing. I vote for CVR.

        Loading editor
    • Given how the USN historical nature was one of the most minor points of the three, pointing that and strawmanning the whole argument on that is depressingly sad if that is the only thing you can come up with in support for CVR.

      Anyway, my points are made and my role in this discussion is complete. Whether or not people want to read them or not is up to them.

        Loading editor
    • @Hayashi

      If you want me to answer all your points, fine.

      1. I agree that CVB shouldn't be used for armoured carrier in case Shinano has an unique mechanic.

      2. I disagree with this point because of what I said above.

      3. That logic is stupid. In that case The B in CVB can stand for breastplate since armoured carriers have armoured flight decks. Using CVR where R stands for reinforced in fine.

      I don't know why your so adamant on using CVA and why you're against using CVR. The whole point of changing CVB for armoured carriers is because it is historically incorrect. Replacing it with CVA doesn't change this.

      Hayashi H wrote:
      Given how the USN historical nature was one of the most minor points of the three, pointing that and strawmanning the whole argument on that is depressingly sad if that is the only thing you can come up with in support for CVR. 

      You say this yet you haven't given a reason why you're against using CVR.

        Loading editor
    • We are separating class between 航 and 装母, Hiryuu is 航 so that's that. This is why the thread become endless...

        Loading editor
    • saying the japanese 装甲空母 also contain A in it is like saying Marshmallow also contain MAL in it so it should be used as MyAnimeList's signature dish.

        Loading editor
    • compare to shoukaku, taihou don't need blueprint to be CVB because in historical only taihou and shinano was implemented to be CVB

      CVB is not always look from large the size, but from extra thickness armor from flight deck. this is can be reason  why shoukaku need prototype flight deck (for increase the thickness of armor flight deck) and blueprint (because is planning and not implemented in historical) in game

      this my refrence wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_flight_deck

      like bismarck never have the torp. but his sister have the torp

      so the reason why bismarck need blueprint in game to remodelling with torp(bismarck drei), because in historical she not implemented with torp

      CMIIW

        Loading editor
    • 64.233.173.161 wrote: compare to shoukaku, taihou don't need blueprint to be CVB because in historical only taihou and shinano was implemented to be CVB

      CVB is not always look from large the size, but from extra thickness armor from flight deck. this is can be reason  why shoukaku need prototype flight deck (for increase the thickness of armor flight deck) and blueprint (because is planning and not implemented in historical) in game

      this my refrence wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_flight_deck

      like bismarck never have the torp. but his sister have the torp

      so the reason why bismarck need blueprint in game to remodelling with torp(bismarck drei), because in historical she not implemented with torp

      CMIIW

      US Navy homepage say CVB= Large Aircraft Carrier. See http://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/us-navy-ships/aircraft-carriers.html

        Loading editor
    • my conclusion is taihou can be called CVB or ACV

      but so far in game, CVB always count as CV. maybe can we call taihou is just CV :v

        Loading editor
    • Ether Real wrote:
      TheLenrir wrote: 
      1435712235597

      This entire fucking thread

      This is why I dislike event downtime, we 'decide' to discuss about things which ultimately has no importance to anything.
      one does not simply approve without thinking creatively... 

      We already got T that shared both Training and Torpedo, why can't Heavy and Armored share an A ? As we use it, it should become commonly known, or do we need to discover a new, sounds cool, maybe suitable much hull code? Please make it simple, and poll where?

      Because trying to generate a Civilised Debate on stuff like this is always going to devolve into tumbler-esque, toy throwing, degenerate arguments. You got one side who is like 'I prefer the term as we have dealt with this for a long time, then another which is like 'well it should change', but this branches into various 'factions' which can not agree on a term, while imparting their 'armchair' historical knowledge on why X is Y.


      It's been over a year since Taihou has been released and now people are suddenly brandishing their pitchforks about the ship term. Why now? Why not earlier? Why do it when the term has been so established into the annals of Kancolle history that it would inevitably lead to bickering which is being displayed in some parts of this discussion?


      Like I told other folks, I prefer to keep the status quo when it comes to stuff like this as I found, from personal experience, that it never leads to a good ending.


      Edit: thanks to Fuji for spellchecking/grammar checking this, I fail at English as an Englishman, the sadness is real.

        Loading editor
    • TheLenrir wrote:

      It's been over a year since Taihou has been released and now people are suddenly branding their pitchforks about the ship term. Why now? Why not earlier? Why do it when the term has been so established into the annals of Kancolle history that it would inevitably lead to bickering which is being displayed in some parts of this discussion?

      While the topic is about Taihou, this discussion actually came about due to Shoukaku Kai Ni and her Kai Ni Kou form. Shoukaku's upgrades giving her the same ability as Taihou means that Taihou can no longer claim to be unique, which thus necessitates having a classification to the type of carrier that Taihou and Shoukaku are. Hell, given Shoukaku's upgrades it's likely that Zuikaku will follow suit, which means we'll have three armored carriers that thus demand their own proper classification.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Qunow wrote:

      64.233.173.161 wrote: compare to shoukaku, taihou don't need blueprint to be CVB because in historical only taihou and shinano was implemented to be CVB

      CVB is not always look from large the size, but from extra thickness armor from flight deck. this is can be reason  why shoukaku need prototype flight deck (for increase the thickness of armor flight deck) and blueprint (because is planning and not implemented in historical) in game

      this my refrence wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_flight_deck

      like bismarck never have the torp. but his sister have the torp

      so the reason why bismarck need blueprint in game to remodelling with torp(bismarck drei), because in historical she not implemented with torp

      CMIIW

      US Navy homepage say CVB= Large Aircraft Carrier. See http://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/us-navy-ships/aircraft-carriers.html

      thank's for the correct :D

      i call taihou CVB because i compare the flight deck extra thickness with shinano and midway (USN CVB)

      midway>shinano=taihou>shoukaku class>hiryuu

      but if looking the spec weight,height,lenght taihou is CV  armored flight deck

      CMIIW

        Loading editor
    • AFAIK any carrier with an armored flight deck regradless of thickness can already be called as armored carrier.

        Loading editor
    • See table below

      Reality KanColle
      Ship USN IJN Devs Fan
      Taihou Standard carrier (CV) Armored carrier (??) CVB
      Kaga Standard carrier (CV) Standard carrier (CV) CV
      Shinano Large carrier (CVB) Standard carrier (CV) Armored carrier? ??
      Standard carrier?
      Large carrier?

      ^ Yellow: Does not exist anywhere else

      Pretty much the reason why I think any discussion on hull designation is fruitless. People will just call ships whatever they want as long as the designation is distinguishable in branching/expedition rules. There's no stopping them and honestly, what good would stopping them bring?

      I'd say keep it the same but no one would listen anyways. I'll just leave the table here for fact-check and quick references.

        Loading editor
    • Fujihita wrote:
      [snip]

      I'd say keep it the same but no one would listen anyways. I'll just leave the table here for fact-check and quick references.

      You're hardly the only one for keeping the designations the same. I don't see any point to changing them other than the novelty of changing them (a good argument for exactly nothing).

        Loading editor
    • I suppose Fuji's graph clearly show why we can't use CVB...

      and what is the meaning of keep it the same? there're nothing to be base..

        Loading editor
    • My graph clearly shows the chance of Large carrier (CVB) being included in the future is highly unlikely.

      Large carrier (CVB) is an obsolete designation, USN these days merged it into CVA and then they merged CVA into CV afterwards. Neither CVA nor CVB exists nowadays, only CV.

      Meanwhile, Armored carrier class has never existed in reality, it's something devs made up out of the blue. Hence, I believe a no-longer-exist designation and a never-exist class fits each other just fine...

        Loading editor
    • Devs just used 装甲空母, which is a real thing ( [1], [2], same way as there was this type). This also says 大型空母=CVB and Shinano also referred to as 大型空母 or 巨大空母 (but Taihou article also refer to her and Cranes as 大型空母, so it's a bit confusing), so there is a possibility for this, too.

      In any case, CVB specifically for 装甲空母 is wrong, unless it's B for breastplates :)

        Loading editor
    • CVR reminds me of this thing...

      http://i1001.photobucket.com/albums/af135/kw2401/Car%20Model/HondaCRV2009_zpsfc29cdd3.jpg

      Not a huge fan of that designation.

        Loading editor
    • It's never a matter of right or wrong. I mean, we all should have realized at this point that CVB for Armored carrier designation is wrong. However, it's so well-entrenched that changing the designation now will be very difficult. Not to mention, changing the designation does not do any good to justify the confusion such a change will cause.

      A well-known historical example of this situation would be the conventional current flow vs. electron flow. Benjamin Franklin clearly got the flow backwards but by the time people realized he had been wrong, it was far too late. Since swapping the direction of the flow on every electronics ever produced would not make life any easier (disregarding the hassle involved in the change), people decided to keep using conventional current.

        Loading editor
    • How about CVC? C for catapult

      Since shoukaku KAi is CV, once she add that Catapult she can become armored carrier just like KTKM in real life with suicide Torpedos from CL to CLT

        Loading editor
    • CVR win so much, how long is the voting period? 

        Loading editor
    • ^^Conventional current makes sense if we take the current flow to be positive though; a hypothetical positron flow will follow the direction of conventional current. Electron flow will have to be by necessity in the opposite direction.

      Besides we don't have to be like those of the past, not fixing mistakes just because they're widespread. People also thought the sun revolved around the Earth. Now no one teaches that anymore.

        Loading editor
    • 110.76.69.202 wrote: ^^Conventional current makes sense if we take the current flow to be positive though; a hypothetical positron flow will follow the direction of conventional current. Electron flow will have to be by necessity in the opposite direction.

      Besides we don't have to be like those of the past, not fixing mistakes just because they're widespread. People also thought the sun revolved around the Earth. Now no one teaches that anymore.

      Not fixing trivial mistakes is one thing, not fixing detrimental mistakes is another.

      The reason why they fixed the sun revolved the Earth is that it makes a difference in studying astronomical phenomenons such as the orbit of comets, planets and the likes. It's between mapping planets to orbit the stationary sun and mapping planets to orbit the moving Earth. Using the second mapping, we would get a "terrestrial system" that changes the planetary members every season due to the wrong reference point.

      It would be silly if that mistake wasn't fixed.

      As for the case of current flow and this designation naming case, the impact would be trivial at best. Other than the slim possibility of Shinano being Large Carrier, I haven't seen any practical benefits. I'm still waiting for the justification why we have to bother ourselves with the upheaval (edit wars and people bitching at one another like left and right wing politicians on gay justice) ensuing the change.

        Loading editor
    • SonyaUliana wrote:
      TheLenrir wrote:

      It's been over a year since Taihou has been released and now people are suddenly branding their pitchforks about the ship term. Why now? Why not earlier? Why do it when the term has been so established into the annals of Kancolle history that it would inevitably lead to bickering which is being displayed in some parts of this discussion?

      While the topic is about Taihou, this discussion actually came about due to Shoukaku Kai Ni and her Kai Ni Kou form. Shoukaku's upgrades giving her the same ability as Taihou means that Taihou can no longer claim to be unique, which thus necessitates having a classification to the type of carrier that Taihou and Shoukaku are. Hell, given Shoukaku's upgrades it's likely that Zuikaku will follow suit, which means we'll have three armored carriers that thus demand their own proper classification.


      It's a fucking Hypothetical Ship for christ's sake. We shouldn't allow a 'fictional' ship to suddenly cause us to rebrand Taihou.

        Loading editor
    • Is it only me or I'm the only one going for ARCV(ARmoured Carrier)? 

      CVR is not bad tho.

        Loading editor
    • My view on why the conventional current direction haven't been changed is that reversing the direction labelling would make people confuse if this labelling follow old rule or new rule. However in this case, before fanbase ultimately accept or reject the code being voted out, calling the ship class in its old way would not make people mistaken it as something else. As of why we should use something else, I think it's back to the poibt that while most people play kancolle because of its girls, it's still sort of a military game and thus having something off too much would displease people. Also, if there might have a CVB incoming, changing code now would work better than change it when it really come.

        Loading editor
    • TheLenrir wrote:


      It's a fucking Hypothetical Ship for christ's sake. We shouldn't allow a 'fictional' ship to suddenly cause us to rebrand Taihou.

      Doesn't matter, since the issue of "CVB vs new designation" is for their assignment to Kancolle, not to real life history. The designation is to allow us to specifically refer to a particular ship class with unique ingame mechanics from other carriers. If we were to go with real life Taihou would simply be a "CV", and yet because this is Kancolle where Taihou has a unique ability the classification is required for ease of identification.

      And while Shoukaku is hypothetical, ingame she now also has a form that has the same ability as Taihou, thus her designation along with Taihou's is also important now, in fact even more so given that Taihou can no longer claim to be unique to her class, and therefore her designation should be capable of encompassing the other carriers that share her ability.

        Loading editor
    • ^The problem now is this could be less complicate than it seems but it's not settle and doesn't stop, some of them are even off-topic. A made-up code, and we still using real-life measurement to continue arguing.

      At some point I thought this alive because we have at least 2 装母 now and we're adding a code in, further saving CVB for Shinano if she ever own it in future, but now, whatever...

        Loading editor
    • SonyaUliana wrote:
      TheLenrir wrote:


      It's a fucking Hypothetical Ship for christ's sake. We shouldn't allow a 'fictional' ship to suddenly cause us to rebrand Taihou.

      Doesn't matter, since the issue of "CVB vs new designation" is for their assignment to Kancolle, not to real life history. The designation is to allow us to specifically refer to a particular ship class with unique ingame mechanics from other carriers. If we were to go with real life Taihou would simply be a "CV", and yet because this is Kancolle where Taihou has a unique ability the classification is required for ease of identification.

      And while Shoukaku is hypothetical, ingame she now also has a form that has the same ability as Taihou, thus her designation along with Taihou's is also important now, in fact even more so given that Taihou can no longer claim to be unique to her class, and therefore her designation should be capable of encompassing the other carriers that share her ability.

      So put Shoukaku Kai ni as a CVB then, how fucking hard can that possibly be? Yet everyone here is sperging about 'OH WE SHOULD MAKE THEM SEPERATE'

        Loading editor
    • TheLenrir wrote:

      So put Shoukaku Kai ni as a CVB then, how fucking hard can that possibly be? Yet everyone here is sperging about 'OH WE SHOULD MAKE THEM SEPERATE'

      We're not moving to make them separate. Rather, the discussion is to replace the term "CVB" which will encompass Taihou, Shoukaku and other future ships with the same features with a more appropriate and "correct" term. Putting Shoukaku as "CVB" would be factually incorrect, and in fact preventing Shoukaku from being labelled as such is what sparked the discussion in the first place, even if the OP started off with Taihou as the basis.

      While we can just call them "Armored Carriers" or "Armored CV" and be done with it, people want to be able to shortcut their names with hull codes just like with every other class, hence why the discussion in the first place. And only now is it recognized that "CVB" is an incorrect term to use as a shortcut for "Armored Carrier".

        Loading editor
    • Fujihita wrote: Not fixing trivial mistakes is one thing, not fixing detrimental mistakes is another.
      The reason why they fixed the sun revolved the Earth is that it makes a difference in studying astronomical phenomenons such as the orbit of comets, planets and the likes. It's between mapping planets to orbit the stationary sun and mapping planets to orbit the moving Earth. Using the second mapping, we would get a "terrestrial system" that changes the planetary members every season due to the wrong reference point.

      It would be silly if that mistake wasn't fixed.

      As for the case of current flow and this designation naming case, the impact would be trivial at best. Other than the slim possibility of Shinano being Large Carrier, I haven't seen any practical benefits. I'm still waiting for the justification why we have to bother ourselves with the upheaval (edit wars and people bitching at one another like left and right wing politicians on gay justice) ensuing the change.

      Fair enough. At least until I come up with a better counterexample, but I'm pretty busy at the moment.

      With that said, know that most of those who read the wikia only have knowledge from places like Wikipedia, and people will want to keep pointing it out. And if they do that, that means it stil isn't too late to rectify the mistake. And just because making a mistake is okay doesn't mean that we have to keep making it. One reason being that a mistake that may seem trivial now could very well end up detrimental some time in the future. Besides, we have had a precedent (fast/slow BB) and it would not be right on the integrity of the wikia for us to set a double standard just because we're too lazy to change it this time round. It'll be telling everyone else that we can make whatever mistake we like despite knowing it's a mistake just because we feel like it, and anyone who wants to complain about it can just suck it up.

      Ultimately, we will have to be concerned about any edit wars that will arise from this, because ultimately we care about the state of info on the wikia, unless you say you don't, in which case I'll have to wonder why you're even here in the first place. I would say that changing it to be factually correct would be a preemptive measure to prevent edit wars from happening in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • It would not be right for the integrity of this wiki to create a new term that's neither factually correct nor is widely supported by the majority.

      In the current situation, many major viewers, all wiki article pages, modules, templates, updates, comments, even Himeuta and Reddit have already adopted the CVB designation. As far as I can tell, doing otherwise will spark edit wars and the incentive to change is ridiculously low right now.

      I'm here to deal with what Pareto analysis tells me to deal with and the positive impact of this matter is at the far end of the chart. This is just like that certain guy who went through every page in this wiki to change "Kancolle" to "KanColle" because the former is grammatically incorrect.

      I couldn't care less but some people do have plenty of free time. Until devs confirm CVB will be in the game and give fans everywhere the right incentive to change, I say "to hell with it".

      Again, just for the record, nothing about this discussion is official. Most wiki staffs have expressed indifference on the class designation and disapproval on the change. Accordingly, should edit war break out as a result of this, status quo (that is the CVB designation) will be enforced.

        Loading editor
    • Fujihita wrote:
      It would not be right for the integrity of this wiki to create a new term that's neither factually correct nor is widely supported by the majority.

      While CVB is widely supported by the majority due to familiarity, it's not factually correct to call Armored Carriers "CVB". In my view, a wiki should pride itself on being factually correct due to the wiki being a repository of information, rather than on what's popular or "traditional".

        Loading editor
    • I believe that should depend on execution. If, say, CVR is most-voted, then on all pages that are currently using CVB we can either write CVR(CVB), or write CVR but annotate it that it mean armored carrier and some call it CVB, and such. After we see more people actually accepted the term and moved onto the term and abandoned CVB we can then start removing some CVB reference from the wiki. Or if people turn out to be not using the term then we can phase out the voted term.

      It is actually rather unlikely for dev to release something that is really categorized as large carrier instead of one of the game ecisting category in my opinion even for cases like release of Shinano, but it is still sonething possible, and, when dev do it, due to the previously announcwd BB-CV kai at level 1 proposal, it is very possible that we would only heard of its existence when devs are releasing maint notice and thus 15 mins before maint. end, and combined with the fact with shinano's nature it is very likely to be a 15 mins before a event start and in this sceanrio, we won't have time to change content on pages, and people's understanding.

      But compare to what dev might do in the future, what concerned me the most is that even if you can't make it right, don't make it wrong.

        Loading editor
    • Notto disu shitto agen

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.