Crow & Rivia
Crow
Rivia, I was just going over the Battle of Thermopylae again and thinking about how the narrow pass turned the Greek numbers into an advantage. Imagine we could pull a pattern out of that for a modern asymmetrical engagement—what do you think?
Rivia
Sounds like a solid line of thought – use a choke point to offset numbers, then keep the enemy pinned. In modern terms that could mean setting up a narrow bridge, a tunnel, or even a cyber “gate” that limits the enemy’s options. The key is to force them to fight in a limited space where your forces can concentrate fire, while you stay mobile on the flanks. Just remember: the more you over‑commit, the easier they’ll find a way around or bypass you, so keep a reserve ready to swing in if they slip out. Good thinking – let’s sketch out a few concrete scenarios.
Crow
Sounds solid, but let’s not forget the enemy will likely try to circumvent the bridge or tunnel as soon as we lock it down. Maybe map out a fallback path that keeps us on the move while we hold the choke. Also keep an eye on logistics—if the reserve gets stuck in the same bottleneck, it defeats the purpose. We’ll draft a couple of options and run a quick risk check for each. Let's get those numbers on the table.
Rivia
Right, keep the reserve on a separate route so they can jump in if the main line is broken. I'll pull the numbers and lay out a quick risk matrix for each fallback. Once we have the figures, we can see which plan gives us the best balance between firepower and mobility. Let's hit the whiteboard.
Crow
Good. While you pull the data, I’ll sketch a quick “escape velocity” chart—how fast each route can absorb pressure and still keep our reserve ready to jump in. Remember, speed over sheer firepower is usually the edge in a tight choke. Let's get the whiteboard ready.