"Strategy Ep. 4"

SUBMITTED: Stardate 95155.1 AUTHOR: CDT3C Rianni Tierno SUBJECT: Starship Tactical Operations; Class 205 Strategic Review: Borg Engagement - Stardate 95145

"Attack is the secret of defense; defense is the planning of an attack"

PURPOSE:

Conduct objective and comparative analysis of stated engagement by simulation and strategic review with task force coordinator; Captain S. Bishop (USS Endeavour).

CONCLUSION:

Simulations lack sufficient data to provide accurate predicted outcomes owing to previously unseen variables. Based on the information available to this review; the picket line defensive strategy was most concurrent with mission objectives and sound of principle as a Command decision. However strategic analysis suggests that a greater risk/greater reward gambit could have yielded a more favorable result.

From a purely Tactical perspective, I believe that the alternate strategy (designation pattern Tierno-1 herein for ease of reference) had potential to further reduce the percentage chance of enemy forces reaching their objective. Without knowing the value of said objective due to confidentiality of information, it is impossible to determine if the greater risk of this pattern bore credit against the offset value of preventing enemy forces from reaching said goal.

My review with Captain Bishop also afforded me the opportunity to consider this from the broader perspective of a Commanding Officer. Upon review of the mission parameters and task force strengths in combination with the opening information available on enemy forces, I would have most likely opted for the same deployment as the Captain, being a textbook picket line, possibly combined with the task force separation indicated in T-1 to spread the line and force the enemy to engage on multiple fronts. Tactically however, I believe with the simplified goal of a victory in the engagement it bares acceptable simulated improvement over the implemented strategy and were I serving in a Tactical capacity to the opening of the engagement, this would have been my recommended deployment.

ANALYSIS:

Opening engagement numbers show a 4:1 ratio in favour of enemy forces. From my understanding of initial sensor readings prior to the engagement, distinction of the two different vessel types was established (further to this that neither conformed to known Borg configurations). With the enemy fleet movements on sensors, SF task force was able to determine where and when the engagement would take place along the given trajectory towards DS13. Astrometrics data for the region shows no discernible environmental conditions that may have been utilized tactically. Picket line formation at most distant point reachable when measured from the target coordinates (DS13) is determined as the optimal field of battle for the defensive lineup. Additional consideration that the actual outcome of the engagement was almost completely waylaid by the unpredictable tactic implemented by the enemy forces in which a mass of boarding pods were used to completely bypass task force defenses and nullify all vessels almost immediately. This assessment acknowledges this as an overriding factor in the end result and focuses instead on a theoretical study of fleet deployment based on the working knowledge available at the time of planning.

fig. i

From the deployment of the enemy forces (fig. i, above), it is quite clearly discernible that they are setting up for a two-wave maneuver, with the smaller escorts forming a dedicated first wave against the task force. Following this strategy through, it was my deduction that not only was their goal to reach DS13 as a target location, but that they also anticipated the interception from our task force and accommodated this within their own planning. The first wave lineup clearly show a broad front line which was conceivably a predetermined counter to use their greater numbers as an advantage by closing in the task force to box them in (fig. iii). With this assessment in mind; I would further deduce that the entire line of escorts was regarded as a sacrificial line with the sole intent of occupying our defenses so that the ark ships could proceed to target, most notably indicating their predetermined expend-ability and therefore their being surplus to requirement at the ultimate goal, a point I shall revisit post-analysis.

This also highlights a potential weakness in the task force opening formation in the USS Akagi taking point. Though favourable due it's firepower and maneuverability (in comparison to the rest of the task force), one could consider this a willing sacrificial pawn in terms of overall strategy given the distinct likelihood that as a less defensive vessel it would be quickly overwhelmed by the enemy first wave. A sound - and arguably bold - strategy given the overwhelming odds. However also shown below (fig. ii) is how the task force deployment also places USS Kassandra in a defended position behind USS Victory. Viewed alongside the above deduction regarding USS Akagi, this leads to a prompt result of effective task force numbers from 5 to 3.

fig. ii

fig. iii

Despite the sound textbook approach of the picket line defensive deployment utilized by the task force, my own tactical assessment is that it was a strategy only ever capable of slowing enemy forces. Perhaps this was the stated intention and a completely calculated move in order to extend the timeframe before the enemy fleet arrived at it's target location, allowing for an increased preparation of final defensive lines. This would not be my own optimal approach as it then relies solely on the final defensive line (DS13) containing the threat.

COMPARISON:

My strategic approach to this particular engagement would have first looked to spread our task force's defensive line by have all ships bar the USS Akagi separate their saucers (assuming all vessels present possess standard separation functionality) and redeploy along a thinner, but broader line. Whilst this would not prevent enemy forces from pushing through the picket line it would force a wider engagement and reduce the possibility of enemy 'Ark' class vessels bypassing the defensive perimeter. Further to this, as noted below (fig. iv), by moving the the Kassandra saucer alongside the Akagi on the front prong of the defensive line, and keeping it's stardrive in it's original rear flanking position a much more evenly distributed defense is presented. Further to this opening deployment - and with specific consideration to the initial analysis of the enemy fleet formation - I would have opted to keep USS Victory out of the opening formation and standing by on reserve out of enemy sensor range.

fig. iv

Although this opening formation does not significantly increase the defensive lineup number (only 7:20), and there is consideration for a mass deployment incorporating small craft from all vessels to overwhelm enemy sensors with multiple targets. The decision was made not to pursue this particular deployment in knowledge that the Borg historically ignore less threatening targets and the deployment of the enemy fleet in this instance has a stronger focus on heavier dreadnought vessels.

Pattern Tierno-1:

From this opening, my intention would be to draw the enemy front line into engaging the task force (working from the strategic deductions detailed in the opening analysis). This would create a void between the two enemy lines in which I would then have the USS Victory warp directly into once the front line was drawn out sufficiently - thus playing to the task force's only notable advantage in having determined the location of the engagement. With USS Victory cutting the enemy 'Ark' vessels off from their defensive support, an initial heavy impact on that line is simulated to remove at least 2 of the 7 vessels through the opening gambit (simulated odds: 78.26%) with a further simulation removing 3 of the arks in this maneuver (simulated odds: 24.7%).

The intention of this opening gambit holding no focus on preventing the enemy fleet from achieving it's goal in bypassing the task force's defensive line, but rather occupying their rear line while USS Akagi and USS Kassandra (Saucer) punch through the enemy front line. From this position, the remainder of the enemy rear line would be drawn in to defend itself against the combined allied force now cutting it off from it's support, while the body of the task force engages with the enemy front line and uses it's broader numbers to box them in.

A successful play of this move (which relies on strategic assumptions made from the initial opening sensor data insofar that the enemy numbers are intended to bolster an inherent defensive weakness to the defenses of individual vessels) has the potential nullify the enemy fleet, though simulations predict that such an outcome would come with the sacrifice of USS Agaki and USS Kassandra (Saucer), with significant damage incurred by USS Victory. However as noted in the opening conclusion this assessment is not about the overall situation and command decision, but a strict strategic analysis of the engagement itself.

fig. v

fig. vi

SUMMARY FINDINGS:

Concluding my review with Captain Bishop of the above analysis and proposed alternative approach with final deductions; I believe that my strategy was sound based on the following points:

• Enemy fleet deployment was indicative of specific strategy in bypassing the task force, as well as the aforementioned inherent weakness of individual ship defenses (i.e. Borg tactics historically see a smaller number of heavy dreadnoughts seeking to overwhelm opposition, whereas this fleet bolstered it's main force with a sacrificial line of smaller escorts)
  

• Given that their front line was presented entirely at the task force, it was superfluous to the ultimate goal. This is inconsistent with any sound strategy to assault DS13 itself.
  

• This overall strategy indicates a far more tactical approach than is historically recorded during Borg engagements, in which brute force is always favoured.
  

• The enemy strategy therefore had to be a 'hit and run' maneuver in which the second line of 'Ark' class vessels were in fact sacrificial as well, in favour of a strategic target which was not DS13 itself. Such a play is not strategically sound unless a specific target is intended and deemed to out-value the willing sacrifice in obtaining it.
  

• From a strategic aspect, if the enemy is making such a bold move to obtain a target; my priority would be focused on preventing that ultimate goal. The theoretical pattern Tierno-1 shows through simulation to have had the potential to achieve this.
  

• These intuitive deductions of the larger concerns were confirmed by Captain Bishop insofar that the Borg Ark ships did not focus overly on penetrating DS13 defenses, but did allow the retrieval of a specific target (which I am unable to present detail on, not having clearance to information of that sensitivity)