@Pacific:
With all due respect , I understand you guys wanting a heavy carrier but please, please, please have a really good carrier sculpt in the final Japanese set if you absolutely MUST put that clunker in this one. One that saw action and made history instead of one that saw zero action and was sunk within a month of being commissioned. If you look at the figures, both the Shokaku and the Zuikaku carried more aircraft and were faster than Shinano and they played a pivotal role in the war. They truly WERE heavy carriers. Even the Unryu carried more aircraft than the Shinano. Please get rid of that dinosaur and give us a real carrier or, at the very least, consider them for your final set. These will quite possibly be the last great Japanese pieces made for A&A and ya just gotta do em’ right. That twelve year old boy in me is begging you guys!  :-(
The U.S. carriers carried more aircraft than the Japanese carriers and really the Akagi and Shokaku carried the most for the Japanese. The two carriers Zuikaku was only 30,000 tons (hardly a heavy carrier) and Akagi and Kaga both around 42,000 tons more in line with the Essex Class for the U.S. Technically the Japanese did no compare with the U.S. Essex or Midway carriers, even the Essex carried 120 aircraft. The Shinano was 68,000 tons, same hull as Shinano. If we base the carrier size off of aircraft storage, Lexington and Saratoga have to be Heavy’s and most of the UK carriers will be downsized. It is really hard to figure out the correct way. This will not be our last set, I assure you we are working on more Japanese carriers as well as some U.S. ones. I am not convinced but was going to use the Taiho as the heavy but also changed. The information I have shows Akagi carrying 91 aircraft, Kaga…90, and Shokaku & Zuikaku as 84, rest of them are in the 60’s and 70’s. I can be swayed to change our minds if I have good reasons. We will do more carriers at regular size and I only want to make one Japanese heavy carrier. Thanks for your input, much appreciated.