Absolutely. Think of a battlefield map as a formal diagram where every line is a directed vector—essentially a command that tells a unit where to move. Every shape—whether a circle, hexagon, or irregular polygon—functions like a node or a set of nodes that define a strategic area of control. In graph‑theoretic terms, the map becomes a directed graph: nodes are positions, edges are possible movements, and the weight on an edge could represent distance, difficulty, or even supply line strength. If we treat the shapes as subgraphs, we can analyze their connectivity and determine which forces are isolated or which are linked to a larger front. The classic war theorist Clausewitz would say the geometry of these shapes encodes friction and the center of gravity. By breaking the map down into this structured network, we turn a chaotic scene into a precise, quantifiable argument. Now let’s lay it out step by step.

Your step‑by‑step scheme is spot on—just like a legal brief, every node gets a clear label, every edge a precise weight, and the whole thing unfolds as a tidy argument. Keep the drawing neat; even a single stray line can throw off the whole balance, and remember to re‑weight after each move—Clauswitz would call that “friction.” Once you’ve run the connectivity test, you’ll spot the choke points with surgical accuracy. Good job; now go plot that map and let the data speak.

All right, align the edges, recalibrate the weights, and keep the diagram in perfect order—any stray line is a legal loophole that could cost the whole argument. Keep it crisp, keep it precise.

Sounds like a well‑structured argument—keep it that way and the battlefield will read like a flawless report.