Where can I get my own loli Yatori?

Where can I get my own loli Yatori?

i hated the last ep tbqh

>an episode without princess

Are you a wolf?

>sweet, playful and curious
>now she's stern, joyless and angry
what went wrong?

She grew up.

...

>translating shogi as chess
FUCK

As a milfag, this shit is hard to watch.

Pretty sure that both armies are meant to look totally incompetent and fighting on the basis chivalry/divine judgement. But still, don't really like how literally nobody besides the MC has common sense.

Filler episode?

Don't worry, MC will have a rival.
If MC is a lazy faggot, his rival is the general that never sleeps.

But for a 12-13 episode adaption pretty much everyone is going to job until the last 2 or so.

chess = check, original name is chatrung
shogi = checking game, just like chatrung

I like how they try to make the MC out to be like some sort of military genius, but his tactics are elementary level shit that every fucking Pte learns in basic. Even then they're still not that great, what with the way no one tells their troops to take cover or conceal themselves.

But the worst part is how I'm expected to believe how military officer candidates aren't getting jacked up for moving in formation and not wearing their uniform to standard.

Well in volume 2 there are already some tough enemy(notISIS), so no really everyone will job to MC.

Happens pretty much every time. In order to write a character who's really smart (or at least really knowledgeable on some topic) you either have to be really smart yourself, or you have to make everyone else really dumb. Since most LN authors aren't military geniuses, guess which one they go with.

she looks like dio with red hair.

Because no one thought he will take a mock battle serious.
It's also due to Empire's are full of officers that with charge mind, unlike upcoming enemies.

>when she's down to fuck

Their actual enemy(not mock battle dumbass) is not really dumb, at least it cost MC a finger in first chapter of volume 3 already, even though it's cut by MC himself.

Let's be honest here, if you don't take a mock battle seriously then you're ignoring the entire point of training exercises such as mock battles.

That still doesn't explain why anyone thinks it's a good idea to position your troops in parade formation in the middle of a fucking field.

>Let's be honest here, if you don't take a mock battle seriously then you're ignoring the entire point of training exercises such as mock battles.
And that's why MC said the empire is hopeless, the LN even said most of time were just two armies standing there, shooting each other, then charges, one of side wins, mock battle ended.

That said.
>That still doesn't explain why anyone thinks it's a good idea to position your troops in parade formation in the middle of a fucking field.
Are you using 21 century tactics to comparing 17-19 centuries tactics?

I know that I will feel like dropping it when she dies, but I like it too much for dropping it
What a weird feeling

I think it's still common sense to take cover or to loosen formation when faced with enemies that can hit you from tens of meters away.

And that you should fire your fucking guns/crossbows if you're less than five meters away from the enemy.

I wish I could drop you.

more like a background story episode about the MC and his childhood friend.
although i don't understand why they made this a whole episode, they could have compressed it into 5 -10 minutes at most and contined with the main plot.
I hope you are wrong, and i hope you don't correct me and prove me wrong.

>I like it too much
Why the fuck

So she lost her virginity to a battalion of enemy soldiers? Does it hurt?

Nah she enjoyed it, the slut.

baka

>That still doesn't explain why anyone thinks it's a good idea to position your troops in parade formation in the middle of a fucking field.

Other than that being more or less how wars were fought up to WW2

Are you aware with 17-18th century line infantry formations? It's sorta like that only their air rifles are even worse than muskets.

I know, it's still fucking retarded since a crossbow could outrange a matchlock but it seems the author didn't really do his research on anything really.

loose formations are over-run easily by bayonet charges.

Please don't embarass yourself user, ever since caplocks with rifling and better artillery became a thing in the 19th century the line infantry formation was gone and cover was used.
Go read Gunka no Baltzar and educate yourself on late industrial age/pre-ww1 tactics.

Good concept ruined by crappy execution and dislikeable characters.

Pretty much spot on

>tbqh
Don't post like this.

There's a river that they're reluctant to pass, remember?

The use of cover was not the end of the use of line formation, both co-existed up until the second world war.

The eastern front of the first world war never saw heavy entrenchment, and the western front before being bogged down with entrenchment was fought with much of the same line formation / charge tactics that wars had been up till then. For years generals on the western front attempted to break the stalemate with, surprise surprise, charges of line infantry! When that didn't work, they simply tried sending more men into the charge. Even by the end of WW1 no one had come up with an improved offensive strategy, which is part of the reason the rest of Europe was caught so flat-footed at the beginning of WW2 when Germany started doing something new.

firstperiod.jpg

Even worse is the MCs attitude towards everything. I haven't seen anyone comparably gary stu-ish in a while. He acts like the most annoying piece of shit yet everyone keeps sucking his dick for spouting platitudes.

I haven't read up extensively on WW1 but I've studied the Balkan Wars a little bit and it seems line infantry doctrine was already obsolette by then (1912).

Line infantry seemed fairly obsolete by the end of the American Civil war, however, that did not stop it being used as the primary means of main army offense, for lack of a better method.

Picket / Skirmishers well back into the 1600s were fighting with what one might consider a more modern mobility/cover style. That didn't stop a main army or even cavalry charge from sweeping them away. Cavalry as much as anything else kept line formation relevant, as cavalry was still used heavily in the beginning of the first world war, particularly by the Russians who had full tilt lancers.

Not the guy you're talking to, but this is wrong.

Linear formations had multiple purposes; first of all they maximised and concentrated fire and thus counter-acted the innate inaccuracy of early modern firearms and allowed most people to use their firearms at the same time. Second, they allowed people to stick together and defend themselves against cavalry charges, which were still a major threat. Lastly, most armies of the 18th century were composed of mercenaries, often people impressed into service. Sticking together raised the morale.

During the 19th century, various developments happened: aerodynamic bullets like the minie made firearms significantly more accurate and deadly at range. Breech loading allowed for firearms to be reloaded while laying down - this was especially important in regards to rifling, since one of the major factors when it came to rifles was that due to the rifling it took a major effort to load them. This allowed for rifles to be used in large quantities. It also allowed for troops to fight in a more mobile manner, taking cover while fighting.

WW1 was mostly fought from defensive trenches - but this had nothing to do with linear tactics. The men were not organised like that and didn't exercise any manoeuvres like in the 18th century. The shape of the trenches may have had a linear shape, but that's about it. When it comes to offensive tactics (we're talking tactics - not strategy), there was quite a lot of development. Accurate artillery strikes to take out communication and command (based on aerial reconnaissance), timed artillery strikes to provide cover for stormtroopers to charge ('fire waltz'), combinations of various kinds of chemical irritants and poison in order to first make wearing gas masks hell and then disable people when they would take them off ('shooting colours'). And most of all the defence-depth-doctrine applied by the Germans at the end, which pretty much marked the beginning of WW2 tactics.

Yes. and why do you think they're reluctant? Because the opponent have already set up a formation that would make charging across a river suicidal.

>surprise surprise, charges of line infantry!

Surprise, surprise, that's just a title! It's the same as calling modern armored units as hussar or cuirassier since it's their past designation. So calling WW1 charges as "line infantry" charges doesn't make any difference. Line infantry formations breaking through other formations already started dying out around the first half of 19th century. Linear tactics requires great morale, can you keep that up when your enemy is spraying you with bullets?

and this

>That still doesn't explain why anyone thinks it's a good idea to position your troops in parade formation in the middle of a fucking field.
Calm down Major Baltzer.

>WW1 was mostly fought from defensive trenches

On the Western front, for the final 2/3 of the war. The eastern front was completely different, and the Western front in the opening years was fought much the same as the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, only with the French having learned to deploy their forces as rapidly as the Germans. The strategic advances in speed and mobility didn't much to change tactics on the battlefield.

All of the changes you've mentioned came about during the course of the war, soldiers/officers pre-war would have been drilled in pre-war tactics. Particularly the top brass would have likely been veterans of wars fought in the old style.

As much limited use as these innovations saw, none of them was groundbreaking to the point it was able to end the military stalemate the war itself had sunk into.

Entrenching had proven itself a defense capable of stopping massed infantry charges, and there remained no superior offensive alternative put into wide spread practice.

I'm confused with what you're saying. Now you're disagreeing with your past statements and agreeing with mine. Now, why shouldn't they take cover or loosen formation, since we already both agree that the enemy is reluctant to charge, therefore bayonet charges are out of the question, and that they're both capable of hitting from afar? Should they stand around in the open, only to be picked-off one by one by an enemy that is a little bit smarter by thinking "Hey! they're only a few meters away and in dense formations! Our crossbows and air rifles, that have at least a hundred meters range, should probably hit them!"

Go read up on Battle of Majuba Hill and tell me.

That wasn't me.

My point is that these being younger less experienced officers, are only likely to do what they've been taught to do, which for that time frame unit cohesion being a top priority and all, stick together.

This was an exam, so of course showing that you can do what your teachers said to do better than the other guys is what the majority of people will try to do.

Not the user you were talking to. You said earlier that they shouldn't line up in such formation, and the other user told you that they would get charged without such formation. You then said they were reluctant to cross. I'm just reminding you that the reason they were reluctant was because of such formation.
As for shooting across the river, I think it's safe to assume their weapons are just that bad, otherwise either side would've just started shooting.

> Linear tactics requires great morale, can you keep that up when your enemy is spraying you with bullets?

But that's exactly what they did throughout the opening years of the war?

Eventually yes, people did start to question it, but at that time there wasn't any proven viable alternative.

Student thinking, huh. Understandable then. They could have shown a bit of common sense, tho.

They're reluctant to charge because of the river. If formation is an issue, then MC shouldn't have charged later on, which is another issue in itself. And why would they train with shit weapons, what would they learn from that? I don't think you'll learn how to use a spear properly from training with a short sword.

They're reluctant to charge across a river because the opponents have already lined up in a formation that would inflict maximum casualty while they are slowly trying to cross the river.
It's pretty clear they do not have modern weapons like we do and charging is still a viable tactic in their world. If people could cross a river as they would flat land, charging across a river would be a viable tactic too.

Not simply student thinking, Take any military officer, who isn't an actual war vet. Chances are they're going to be rolling with the doctrines that were drilled into them at school until such time actual combat proves different.

Then if they are a vet, by the time they see another war (say 20 years or more) and now they're a major or a general, the tactics they'll be looking to employ are likely the same as they used in their last active conflict, and who is some random fresh out of officer training 2nd Lt to do otherwise?

Then please provide proof. Linear tactic should have been dead before WW1, the brits already learning this from fighting with the Boers before. And the lessons the amerifats learned from their civil war. And some other wars between WW1 and Napoleonic. And since cavalry, one of the main reasons linear tactics existed, is already obsolete by then, there's no more reason to make men march in close formations towards their enemy. I mean, if you were commanding, and you can see that everyone can shoot accurately and in massive volleys, would you send your men marching and in tight formations?

All of you, just go read Gunka no Baltzar, it's surprisingly accurate and well researched.

That said, I like how anime like this, with their retarded depictions of troop deployment create threads with this kind of discussions.

How much does she wants the D?

It was pretty accurate, indeed, but the artillery showdown was just somewhat bullshit. I understand that the old guy was a genius artilleryman, but that shot to the tower was just fucking accurate, I call it bullshit.

Nothing wrong with that part, just had to throw it out. Manga is still pretty good.

She really wants the Development but unfortunately for her she's stuck in a bottom of the barrel LN adaptation.

Yatori looks more cannon that this slutty princess.

Charging in itself is an issue. Engagements between infantry should start with exchanging fire, and the commanding officer then judges when is the correct time to charge. It's not a starting move. Imagine charging a formation that's loaded and ready to fire. They get to pick off some of your guys, and when you smash through their lines, chances are there are more of them and your men are tired. They get to fire, you don't. That's why it's starts off first with exchanging fire.

Good point. I've seen this a lot in WW1 books.

Yes, even before the use of firearms in war, people would still give their enemies at least one volley of arrows before they started charging. If the firearms in the Alderamin world are less reliable than bows and arrows why are they still using them? I don't know but that's the setting so I'm just rolling with it. Within that setting, charging is still a viable tactic in certain situations. Charging across difficult terrain is not. If crossing a river is as easy as if the river is solid land, then charging across a river could be a viable tactic too.

That's wrong. The execution should've been better but it isn't crappy and the characters are pretty likeable.

If were taking into account their shitty equipment, then probably yes, charging might be viable. But why would they even bother using those if they're shitty?

Bow users required extensive training and practice. Crossbows required sufficient strength to cock.

Any mook can point a musket in the general direction of the enemy and fire. In the alderman world I suppose its a question of how common individuals paired to wind spirits are.

The talent for accurate shooting being rare, but present is consistent too, as the term sharpshooter dates back to the American revolutionary war, while smooth-bore muskets remain a mainstay for another 100 years.

Arrow/bolt/ball volleys were rarely used as a primary offense. They helped to disorganize an enemy, making it easier to rout them in a charge, or if on the defensive, break up the enemies' charge forcing them to pull back and regroup.

Yes, that's the thinking behind linear tactics, but the issue is why would they even bother training with shit equipment that can't even be used to disorganize the enemy or break their charge?

>can you keep that up when your enemy is spraying you with bullets
That's why trench warfare had such high death rates.

Like I said I don't know but I'm just rolling with it. The author clearly wanted charging to still be a viable tactic in that world. I'm only talking about the river you brought up. If we accept charging is a viable tactic, then your point about the river is wrong.

why can't it again? That clearly seemed to be what smug green brother was thinking. If his more disciplined unit traded shots with the troops just assigned to some lazy shit they don't respect, the other side would get fed up / break first.

Yeah, and so did amphibious attacks. Your point is?

About the river being a natural barrier? You can never disregard rivers, topography in general. There is no doubt rivers are going to be taken into account, whether charges are viable or not. I don't think you'd agree that charging across a river is smart.

Could the princess take an amphibious attack on her flat chest?

There are no prominent rises, just flat barren lands, so the enemy doesn't have a high ground advantage. I'd say it's possible.

I think he just mentioned that their armies are of the same strength. I don't remember any mention of morale.

Your argument started about the formation. The other user pointed out that the formation is to prevent the other side from charging (or to inflict maximum casualty if they are stupid enough to try). You then brought up the river. The point you are missing here is, it's not the formation nor the river that made charging impossible, but both of them together.

numerically, but one is composed of officers that the enlisted all consider to be stronger/better

If you're afraid of and/or confident in the abilities of your commander, you're going to have a higher moral than someone being led by the lazy / incompetent.

I just looked over everything again, and it seems you're wrong. My argument was that they should take cover or loosen formation, then the other user pointed out that it would be vulnerable to bayonet charges. Then I pointed out that there's a river, and a little while later I pointed out that charging is wrong in itself. The issue we're tackling is why not have the men take cover or loosen formation when the enemy is across a river and is capable of hitting you from afar. We already covered how charging across a river is impossible.

That assumption is correct, yes. And it should have played out that way. But what's your point exactly? I think we're talking about how charges work and how shitty their weapons are.

>We already covered how charging across a river is impossible.
Because of the formation.
You moved on to how charging is unfeasible anyway. For that I have no explanation. The author clearly wanted charging to be possible, so the people in that world for some strange reason are relying on unreliable weapons.
I'm only talking about how the formation is to take full advantage of the fact that the river is a difficult to traverse terrain.

Scenario:

Green's men move into the tree line on either side of the clearing, while this makes it harder for the enemy to hit them, it also makes it harder for them to hit the enemy.

Green considers his forces to have the advantage while trading blows on equal terms, so why wouldn't he fire from the position in which his forces can do the greater damage to the enemy even if they take slightly higher casualties?

Note that green is also cautious of an enemy detachment circling around to hit him, and dispatches his melee troops in the direction he suspects such an attack to come from, or, should they find no such attackers allowing them to circle behind the enemy to hit them from behind.

In such a situation his show of force / skirmish across the river servers as a fine diversion / wearing down of the enemy forces, and if his superior melee unit encounters an enemy unit he expects them to have no trouble with them.

Eventually Ikta's forces have to retreat, and even without anything decisive its still greens win.

They made some "scientific experiments" in this scene while the camera wasn't rolling, didn't they.

What kind of "scientific experiments"?

I find no way to put it any more subtle than "inspection of genitalia and their function".

You mean they fugged :DDD

But you don't need formation to prevent a charge anyway, when there's a river in front of you, and that they are also well aware that you can fire at their charge. They'll be forced to take cover. At best, you can loosen formation to lower chances of getting hit.

This. The only problem is that neither side fired at all during the standoff. And if Ikta didn't take into account that the detachment he sent can't take on Yatori, I don't think he should be considered a genius.

very unlikely, she wasn't upset when she heard he slept with a 'divorced' woman.

No. Just inspection. Your mind sure is dirty.

You circled back to how charging is unfeasible anyway. Which makes the river irrelevant so I don't know why you brought it up.
If we accept that charging is a viable tactic in that world and their weapons can not reach the other side of that river, then their formation made sense.

Wouldn't inspection include an observation of how a penis twitches and throbs as it cums inside a girl?

Experiments have to be thorough.

the detachment he sent wasn't meant to take on yatori, just delay her while his force surprise assaulted the enemy commander's force. if she had continued following her original orders he would have won before she could rejoin the battle.

their weapons likely couldn't cross the river + clearing, so as long as they each stayed on the far sides of the clearing, they were fine. However holding in the middle of the clearing allows you to fire on anyone attempting to cross the river.

Hiding in the tree-line on the far side of the clearing would allow the enemy to cross the river un-harried and most importantly, re-form before advancing on you. Not to mention that being broken up in the trees leaves your units unformed if you want to make a charge at the enemy as they're landing on your side of the river to push them back into it.

Oh, that was just a side note, that charging is wrong in the first place. I added later on that charging isn't the starting move, but rather some exchange of fire. The river was very relevant, it's a natural barrier, so I don't know why it shouldn't be included. But you're correct that their formation would have probably made sense if charging is viable and their weapons are shit.

And another side note that was taken up is that why would they bother training with those weapons if they can't even cover a few meters? For what purpose? Like I said, I don't think you'll learn to properly use a spear if you were given a short sword.

I want to be Yatori's bath buddy.

Have to agree with this. MC in particular is really unlikeable.

But since she didn't strictly follow orders and that they are superior melee forces and that they're only meant to intercept the detachment, it's also a threat to Ikta that they can break through the harassing detachment and attack Ikta's main group and incur much heavier losses since it's from the rear. In a sense, reversing what the green cunt perceived as an attempt to attack their rear.

Take this shitty Paint drawing.

It would have probably taken Yatori longer to circle around like that. In the time it would have taken her to do so, the main battle would have already been lost. Remember, the only reason Green lived through that battle is because Yatori hauled ass to get back there.

Also only Yatori is superior, there's no reason to assume her entire detachment is really that much better at melee.

I'm conflicted. I like when the MC is actually showing emotions like pic related, it's just the rest of the time the show wanks him super hard, and he's completely infallible which it gets old fast.