[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/jp/ - Otaku Culture

Search:


View post   

>> No.14564877 [View]
File: 348 KB, 494x733, Zuikaku_Kai_Ni.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14564877

>>14564814
>>14564645

So I see this topic has reared its ugly head.

As someone who really only got dragged into the godforsaken RNG hell of KanColle for the historical aspects, I can agree with Anon #1 that CVB does not accurately describe Taihou. It is a result of trying to force the American naval classification system onto that of a different navy, something that has been problematic at the best of times and resulted in... no small amount of strategic confusion (Cruiser gap anyone?). However, its ability to abbreviate is incredibly useful, and there is no small number of players who are already familiar with the scheme and use it anyways.

As such, people started calling Taihou a CVB because we need some way to distinguish her from the CVs. I disagree with any notion that we should revert Taihou and the Crane Kai Ni As back to CVs with the advent of the Jet Fighters that can only be equipped to Armored Aircraft Carriers. As such we need something to use, and CVB, being the previously reigning term, has been continuously dominant. I've usually seen most players and communities I know use the term with no ease, though not all understand its historical innacuracy.

The point about Shinano is a good one, as she is a Supercarrier that falls under the traditional definition of CVB. If Shinano is introduced we, as a community, likely will have to find a better naming scheme or erupt in this flamewar urgently. So, in a way, it's good we're having these discussions now, in case we can find a solution (And let's be realistic for a moment--some of us are going to rage on any solution implemented).

Looking through the previous matters, I can see that there are some reasonable alternatives. Being a bit of a purist myself, I'm most favorable towards CVR, since I am of the school of thought that the CVA designation was a poorly-defined idea in the first place. If an idea can be agreed upon by a large segment of the communities I go around in with a good deal of agreement between most members I'd be happy to start updating the wiki I use to better represent the Armored Aircraft Carrier.

>> No.14288885 [View]
File: 348 KB, 494x733, CSjI3w4UwAA9Eyk.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14288885

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]