I did support my point. I love logic lessons---having an MA in Philosophy from Georgetown and an M.Phil in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge, and having taught philosophy at the University level---I think I know the basic rules of argumentation. This is nothing more than a kind of "appeal to authority", and I'm NOT an authority so I will address your points. Perhaps my point was made too tacitly. I will repeat my points in more detail.
(1) I hold that battleships were "not that important" (does not mean they were irrelevant) BECAUSE their loss in battle was not viewed as decisive or catastrophic. However, the loss of a CV was considered to be such.
(2) I hold that they were antiquated weapons systems looking for some function in a new world dominated by the CV. Please read or re-read Dreadnought, and them some accounts of the naval war in WWI, and perhaps look at the efforts in the 1920s and 1930s to limit naval construction along the lines of the Kellogg-Briand efforts. What will you see? The "capital ships", i.e., Battleships were considered the decisive measure of a nations seapower. Naval war was envisioned as these ships slugging it out a la Jutland at 24,000 yards. This view was torpedoed at Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Norway, off Singapore, Truk, off Brest, etc., etc., . Did the Battleships provide important ground support fire---yes---ak fire? yes. Were they important? I would say they were relatively unimportant for the reasons stated.
(3) Finally, I'm an epistemological holist like W.V.O. Quine. So, mu initial post was intended to be taken as a whole, and to sink or swim as a totality. Looks like it sunk. So, my point about "superabundant" worlds cannot be discarded as one attacks my view of the relative importance of battleships. If HTC wants to build an AH world with few limitations---then fine---add the Iowa Class ships. If the ONLY consideration is keeping up with current CVs----well that is a good reason. It still doesn't address the playability issue of firepower and range. My point was this: To the extent that anyone is interested in historical scenarios that INTEGRATE AC with other weapons systems---then, IMO (a matter of rational belief not of scientific demonstration) there are other battleships that would better suit this role and better represent the systems that took a greater part in the conflict. It is VERY possible that no one cares about the historical aspect. This may be why there are so many "odd birds" in the game, i.e., firefly, Ta-152, Arado, 163, and some others. If "coolness" is the criterion and we just want something that can escort CVs to pound the crap out of a town in the Late War MA---I guess it is a good idea.
(4) BTW---Widewing---your points were no less "rhetorical" ---the fact that a role was found for these ships as an Ak screen---does not mean they were "important". Of course, "important" is a mushy enough term that I suspect we will simply have to disagree, BUT not because of some shortfall on my part. Please note----the battleships were screening the Carriers---a point that supports my point---that they were dinosaurs looking for a raison d'etre which could only be found in CV support.
