I would have to agree with the author's point.
The Durango-Carrier Modification *IS* better than the Rangers.
The Rangers are ancient. The ships were around over 50 years before the Kilrathi Conflict even BEGAN!
Remember in WCAS how the military was always cutting back the defense budget and trying to keep outdated ships flying?
The Ranger-Class was probably an example of this.
The Durango's were outdated in 2662 about. That's about 10 years before WC4.
Could have been in '61 though. While Bandit insists that WC4 is in 2673, all evidence points towards '71 or '72. In the novel, in the beginning it was mentioned that it wasn't even two years since the war ended, and the war ended in late 2669.
So assuming a Destroyer which was outdated in '61, it probably would have served a good 10 or 15 years, maybe 20 if lucky.
With that said, it should have been brand new around 2641 to 2652.
Since the Ranger was commissioned 50 years before the war began (over 50 actually), which began 7 years before 2641, and 18 years before 2652, and the Durango's were commissioned about 10 to 20 years before they were considered obsolete in '62, it would suggest that the Durango's superiority lies in the fact that it is more advanced technologically.
Now, the Durango started out as a heavy destroyer, and a big one at that! I wonder if it was stretched out at all when it was converted into a carrier? But the Border Worlder's took the Destroyer, and split it in half and built a large flight-deck across it.
I wonder if it had a smaller flight-deck there earlier and it was simply enlarged (did the Durango's have a fighter compliment initially?)
The Durango's can carry 40 fighters.
The Rangers can also carry 40 fighters.
I would say the Durango is superior because
-It carries a torpedo-capacity
-It still possesses the ability to go head-to-head with capital ships like a destroyer would.
-It's faster than the Ranger (Durango: 150 kps damaged, vs Ranger: 120 kps in WC3 condition).
The Ranger does have a Capship-Missile Launcher which does have a greater range and gives it a great-degree of bombardment capability, and it's also a dedicated carrier, which has some perks.
I've also heard some comparisons of the Bengals to the Durango's and stuff...
Bengals are slower than the Durangos (130 kps vs 150 kps).
Bengals are almost certainly less maneuverable.
Bengals acceleration probably aren't as good.
Bengals however do carry more torpedoes (I think the movie's 40 torpedo-tube statistic was overboard, but it still probably has torpedo tubes as it does run totally independant of a battlegroup in a wartime scenario).
Bengals also have a significantly greater fighter capacity (104 fighters).
Bengals are also better armed.
As for the comments about the CVS-65 Concordia: The Concordia is a Dreadnought! She's a dreadnought and a carrier in one actually. Dreadnoughts are supposed to be able to go head to head with capital ships.
Think of the Concordia as a WW2 Battleship, except it's also got a 120 fighter compliment, thinner-armor, twice as many main turrets, and a big-ass giant gun down the centerline which can blow a ship to smithereens with a single shot.
That is basically the best analogy of the Confederation-Class Dreadnought.
It is more than just a carrier.
The Bengal-Class is more independant than the Confederation Class though as it operates without a battlegroup. The Confederation-Class requires two-destroyers as escorts.
The Durango-Class by the way should have had an escort. In the novel it did (3 frigates if I recall correctly). The Lexington did not have an escort either. In the novel it did, except in the end Captain Paulson (spelled Paulsen in the game) ran the Lexington ahead of the battlegroup to stop the Intrepid (which was originally called the TCS-Delphi).
I have more to say, and even comparisons of the ships, but I'll do that later.
ADHD's a b*tch
-Concordia
.
)
