Isekai Maou to Shoukan Shoujo no Dorei Majutsu - Vol. 13 Ch. 61.1 - Using Our New Weapons II

[Noir4241]

@Chrona the way you’re referencing that tactic is very similar to multiplayer game where you have PvP. Something akin to Overwatch, in a way, Support player tend to have the greatest influence on deciding the momentum of the team, losing them would stagger the coordinations. Tank role is to protect squishy support and DPS allowing them to do their job, but if they’re taken out, the team have to stop and regroup or commit in a risky attempt (usually not good). DPS tend to be the less valuable role but actually can be a good factor considering they need to work with Support and Tank to fulfill their roles, a bad DPS are the one who don’t communicate properly and doing solo play all alone.

Really, if any of the role can’t done properly, they would snowball fast. The demon indeed is good enough in strategy, but he didn’t read the situation fast enough.

 

[Brimstone]

@Chrona Red answered some of the points I wanted to make, but another I didn't see is morale. Battles at times can be won and lost purely by the morale of your soldiers. If your soldiers are eager to fight the enemy and willing to die for their cause then they have a hell of a lot better chance of winning than those who are being forced to fight and want nothing to do with it (other factors not withstanding of course). But even die hard eagerness for the cause can suddenly flip in a heartbeat when you see that buddy you've been training with lose a limb screaming in pain and bleeding out with not a soul lifting a finger to help. People on average tend to be a bit sensitive to the pain and suffering like that of other people around them. At least make some efforts to keep them alive soldiers that before may be more pissed off at their allies for letting another suffer may now instead rather go fight the enemy for revenge in the name of their comrade's suffering. Not quite as simple as all that, but I hope it helped get the point across.

 

[rrolo1]

Well, Diablo was quite savage in this one. But war is war, after all ... and it is not that the other side has been white lily angels before.

 

[Danoso]

🤨 who the fuck is this total Chad he’s fucking awesome 👏🏾😎

 

[Chrona]

@Red225

again, this doesn't apply to fantasy world's with quick and easy healing and teleportation, and where people can continue to fight at near full capacity after losing a couple of limbs.

The tactics listed were precisely in reference to real world wars. In a fantasy setting with the ability to heal from death's door to full fighting, you must kill a significant portion of enemy soldiers to win, and they must be killed or they come back. As you said though, IRL it takes shit tons of resources to save a not dead man. In that case the optimal strategy becomes injuring just enough to incapacitate them so the enemy is forced to lose resources keeping men alive or suffer moral issues. As you also said, medical staff are usually strained on battle fields, if you reduce the amount of medical personnel available to the enemy that strains it further, resulting in more loses. Even in a world where magic full heal isn't available, killing medics severely changes enemy tactics.

Of course this doesn't even cover the fact that the idea of a combat medic is relatively modern. Earliest examples I can find place them in the 1790s. Before then if you get injured you're just fucked. There can't be rules against killing medics if medics don't exist.

In this very real world, countries look after soldiers for a number of reasons:
-normally, as a citizen of your country who has fought for his country, the country has a duty of care to look after him. The whole point of most governments is to care for its citizens.

"Duty". This means absolutely nothing in isolation. The point of a government is not to "care" for it's citizens. It's meant to rule over them. Now, giving the propaganda illusion that you care is beneficial and usually makes the citizens easier to rule over, but caring is not the point nor even a requirement. Else states like North Korea and Islamic Theocracies wouldn't exist.

-pragmatically, if you let your soldiers die instead of healing them, word will get out that you are letting your soldiers die if they get wounded, and you won't get people getting recruited, and your soldiers will start to desert. If you show you don't care for the soldiers lives, why would they fight for you?

They wouldn't would they? This then reinforces my original argument that killing the medics is good for winning wars because if your enemy doesn't have any medics to save soldiers, then their soldiers are more likely to desert as well, as you've stated.

It's important to remember the vast majority of wars fought have not been to utter destruction of an enemy. Most of the time it has been until one side of a conflict either sues for peace or capitulates entirely. There is never a time where you would simply stop treating your troops just to save on resources -by the time things get that bad you would already be on your last legs, or you would have been having to neglect your medical supplies for the entirety of the war to be in that state.

The first point is irrelevant. The strategies work concerning utter destruction or suing for peace. You can only perform utter destruction after the military is dealt with, then you can start working on the civilians if that's your goal. Either way the enemy military has to go. And actually, this reminds me that it's an important part of triage to label certain wounds as lost causes and to not waste resources on them. So in fact, it actually is very important that you do not treat certain wounds in order to save troops in current medical practices. The kind of wounds you walk away from a war with, but aren't sturdy enough to go back in are not that common. Most either kills or nearly kill you, or are more minor in nature allowing you to return to duty. For maximum resource loss you should try to maximize wounds that don't kill but incapacitate enough to not be lost causes, but unable to fight for months. This would also strain the enemies economy the most effeciently.

Either way, attacking hospitals is barbaric and has minimal or negative effect on the enemy's capabilities. Which is why doing so is both abhorrent and dumb. At best it is a terror attack.

You just said people are more likely to desert if there aren't any medics to save them. Why wouldn't you want your enemies soldiers to desert? You also mentioned the moral loss which also plays a role. Why are you taking back what you said earlier? Furthermore, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[CalamityCallout]

Oof poor demon, disobeying the demon lord, invading, getting all your wives killed, and for what? Idiot.

 

[Chrona]

@Brimstone
If morale is important, I go back to a point made earlier where killing medics hurts morale. In that case, the enemy is more likely to have worse morale, so it's still beneficial to kill the enemies medics in that case, and it's important to protect your own medics.

Either medics are important enough to kill or they're a non-factor. There's really no in-between. The only reason medics wouldn't be valid targets is the concept of a pre-established prisoners dilemma where both sides agree it's mutually beneficial to keep their medics alive. That falls apart when either side stops cooperating though.

 

[evlbb2]

Honestly this version's scans seems less blurry than the other/later one. Why are we doing this double release thing again instead of either teaming up or one of them dropping it?

 

[Lolipop_Candy]

Ruthless to riajuu demon !!

I might worship him

 

[Chizan]

Played by the book. Take out the medic first.

 

[AnonMan88]

@RedSalt in the novel version, the ice was the LAST part to appear. It was almost like she was freezing from the inside out. By the time she realized what was happening, the spell had already reached her torso.

@x3h0n it's not that clear here, but he actually cast the spell BEFORE he grabbed her in the novel version. It was taking effect the second he touched her. Him saying the name of the spell was more like him telling her what was happening.

 

[Valkyrie]

Woot! Thanks for the chap!

 

[Arkhell]

Muscle magic... Wait wrong manga xD

 

[TheMadFool]

Every runner knows the rules: geek the mage first!

 

[Sgt_Bothari]

...I have brought a large quantity of MP recovery potions...

Y'all should be using a Camelbak for that, keep your hands free.

 

[Pumpki]

whenever i see the cute girls get killed, i get sad ((((((((

 

[Eridian]

@alidan i mean he just went from slightly cringy guy with social anxiety to straight up incel kill all the thots shit. It's a pretty big leap in personality.

 

[Arcara]

Nah it's quire consistent that he has no mercy on riajuus you speed reader, first chapter even

 

[Red225]

@Chrona You specifically asked about "why do you bother treating soldiers as opposed to letting them die in a ditch". The answer is that it lowers the morale of the soldiers.

Triage is a separate issue. If you've got two guys shot, and one has been shot in the heart and one has been shot in the gut, you try to save the one who's been shot in the gut, because the guy who's shot in the heart will almost certainly die. But if you've got only the guy who's been shot in the heart, you still try to save the guy shot in the heart. (Unless you're being shot at, in which case you should prioritise staying alive, obviously)

The reason not to actively hunt down and kill ENEMY medical staff is because then you open up the can of worms that is "killing noncombatants" and "total war".

Again, pragmatically, there's a big difference between case 1: "you deliberately choose to not treat your wounded" and case 2: "the enemy is trying to kill your medics".

The difference here is with case 1: if you don't treat your soldiers with at least SOME care, you will get many more people deserting, which moderately hurts your fighting capabilities.

With case 2: If the ENEMY tries to kill the medics, first off, you can lambast the enemy soundly for being jerks, and get MORE recruitment, not less. Second, you can then move the medical staff further from the front lines or support them more, forcing the enemy to overreach to try to kill the medics and bomb hospitals, and thus seriously deplete the enemy's attacking force for trying to shoot the healers first.

Lastly, if the enemy starts attacking noncombatants and medical staff, you then can use that in the propaganda war and also commit atrocities of your own, citing "they started it". If the rulers of a country trying to kill the enemy's medical staff have a big part of their country bombed to smithereens in retaliatory strikes, that's both a loss to their military force AND their economy. They too can respond in kind, but wars tend to be fought over resources, and if both countries exhaust themselves in a total war both countries lose out, and it's far more likely one side will sue for peace or sign a peace treaty before that.

Total war is very rare in the real world, because total war destroys the things you're trying to rule over - people and infrastructure. What's the point of doing total war if you lose a whole load of your own country's strength and gain back the bombed out shell of another country if you win, and you're completely wiped out if you lose? That's what bombing hospitals gets you - it's the tactic of people with nothing left to lose but their own lives, because escalating the fight to noncombatants and civilians will inevitably lead to YOUR noncombatants and civilians getting killed. Which is very, very unprofitable for everyone.

Most militaries aren't totally destroyed before one side sues for peace. When it's obvious one side has lost, they tend to surrender and agree on how much loot the winners get. It's relatively rare the winners say "we want to murder every single one of you", because they want money, not blood.

 

[Qelix]

@Chrona: I believe one of Red225's main points, which he didn't get across too well, is, that if you destroy the medical facilities of the enemy in a RL war, you'd also "relieve" him of his duty to care for his wounded soldiers. You deliver the perfect excuse. "The inhuman enemy is at fault." Sure, there is a blow in moral and there will be more deserters, but it wouldn't be as much of a moral blow, as if a modern human would have to acknowledge, "Yupp, my own side doesn't give a damn about me." 'It is the enemy, who is the arsehole and not my government.'
And while each lost soldier live, who died because he couldn't get threaded, is a loss of a raised and educated citizen in the aftermath of the war (always assuming he could still work in some way), within the war it is a "quasi-relieve" as he would have slowed down the war efforts. Therefore bombing hospitals, doesn't just let you look bad in the eyes on onlookers (other parties), you would have a bigger advantage in modern war, if you keep those facilities intact.

Though this is more of a general idea, as tactics might shift depending on the scenario. If you are fighting a bigger invader and that invader is more than rich enough to care for his soldiers, then it might be worth a try as part of guerilla tactics to fend him off and deliver the message, "If you come here, you will die."