Hey... going by looks...
The "Ranger" class looks exactly like the "Concordia" class. Plus or minus a little "bulge".
Why would you exactly mirror a design and only make it bigger to perform a very different role?
Yet, despite looks, "Concordia" carries 90 fighter craft, carriers enough work/store areas to support these 90 fighter craft, the class largely survived the war, despite the WC material which stated Confed's fleet carrier status was less than 10 after suffering 50% losses. There isn't room in the numbers to support a class that survives throughout the war somewhat intact.
As to "standard fleet carrier", I'm ignoring WW2.. we're goign to talk supercarriers.. which are largely more intricate, capable, and comparable to ships in role of the WC universe...WWII carriers were cranked out like Cruisers and Destroyers..
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_super.htm
You will see that Forrestel ships led way to the Kittyhawk class, which led way to the JFK class. The ships in these classes were constantly updated, and even underwent some changes while under construction... Forrestal,KH,JFK all follow the same construction lines but each are a result of trial-error.
As for the Nimitz class, depending on how you view it, there is but 3 Nimitz class ships, and the rest are sometimes called Theodore Roosevelt class.. due to the huge difference in construction methods (Teddy was constructed a bit more modularly if I remember) and equipment capabilities.
So what material source lists the Victory as "Ranger" class? And what material gives the "Concordia" class 90 craft?