Netachara-Tensei Toka Anmarida! - Vol. 5 Ch. 22.1

[RogueKitsune]

Yes that one weather was nice, but not that other weather. That other weather was dreadful.

 

[popinloopy]

Thank you so much for the update!

 

[Whoareyou_vl]

oooougggghhhhhhh newwwe chapterrr

 

[Ezlsnow]

Keep asking, TL's friend

Personally, I don't mind not redrawing SFX and just plaster the TL'd ones. Thanks for the chapter.

 

[Falgabird]

Also would

Maybe would if she had a gag on.

Much as I'd appreciate the pleased, I'd rather not have the risk of her launching into a villainous monologue during coitus.

 

[Helitrix]

Realest comment ever

its so true, at one point our group just kinda said "lets put the SFX next to the japanese one or in the boarder

 

[thirtykei]

I can fix her

 

[ShiitakeCat]

Thanks for picking this up!!

 

[Laisy]

What even is that? Did they carve a mountain over time and turn it into a city? How long would that take. Who would start with that, considering it is also an island of all things? Well whatever.

Scoring scale 4-10

Feasibility: 5+. While it is a lake city, you usually build those on the shore and not on an island. Atleast you wouldn't have to travel to a quarry, since your city is built on one, provided the stone they cut is actually useable and not some trash minerals. Water access is easy, but what about food? There is no sign of ports in the city and no sign of surrounding farmland for that matter. Well the farms might be off screen for all we know, so that can be partially be forgiven. Nonetheless, how would you start this whole thing? First settle on the mountain and then start building the bridges? Build the bridges to a mountain and then start carving the city? Mayhap this was a quarry in ages past that got turned into a city as they hacked away at it, but even then, you'd most likely live in the city they built from this mountain not on this mountain.

Defensibility: 8+. Narrow bridges with only two main access points and even with that, the whole city is surrounded by a sturdy wall, with towers covering the walls and each other. Assaulting this would be a nightmare of logistics and defensive wet dream of any good general. One can imagine what a grapeshot or a similar spell could cause on those bridges. Even if the gates or walls are somehow taken/breached, the layering of the city serves as additional walls. This is essentially a Minas Tirith, but even more of a nightmare to counquer. Additional bonus points for having the royal palace/fort be a separate entity from the main city, so the actual strong point and place of importance is even harder to capture.
However, it seems to be extremely dense, so I don't think this city would fare that well in a siege. Not to mention, the lack of ports and just two easily blockable access ways, the sieging army barely has to try. Should the food stores be insufficient, I don't think you'd have to wait long for the city to devour itself, maybe even literally so. Moreover, destroy the bridges and any defending force inside is trapped and completely eliminated from the war. No need to bother with assaulting or sieging the city at that point.
Also, the towers are quite a distance from each other, so manning and securing the walls effectively throughout the day might be difficult. I can imagine some sneaky swimmer-cum-climbers scaling the wall and then torching say the food stores as an example in the cover of the night.
Also also, the palace and the city can't really support each other. If one is taken somehow, it becomes a strong point for the attacker to use as a staging ground for assaults on the other.

General design: 6. I like layered cities. I like segmented cities. This is both. The very top of the city-cake probably has a view to die for. Makes you wonder if the higher you go, the more affluent the people are or maybe they subvert our expectations and the slums are actually on the top layer. It is lacking in decor, monuments and stunning buildings. Aside from the palace, it just is a city-cake. No big temples, towers, barracks, arches, statues or any of the bread and butter of fantasy cities. Definitely loses points from that. The bridges too are quite dull. Slab some statues of past monarchs and whatnot on them. The top layer of the cake most definitely should have a grand temple or palace or something GRAND there. Also it's not just a waterfront city, but a lake city and it completely lacks any harbours or ports. Additionally, there should be another gatehouse or a check point on the other end of the bridge, those things really are so dull and boring looking.

Final score: 6½. Interesting idea, but very bland realisation. Not to mention that an impregnable fortress is made completely moot, when you can just sit safely fishing on the otherside of the lake and watch your enemy starve in peace. The longer I look at it, the more disappointed I get. At least it has a good view and you could easily build a skii-ing slope inside the city.

I came here for funny comments, instead I get city reviews.

 

[Laisy]

When I was translating this I was wondering if I should go with "Estor" for the country name as shown in previous chapters for consistency, but I stuck with "Estol" instead, and there are two reasons why, first is the katakana was "E-su-to-ru", had it been "E-su-to" then "Estor" would have matched much better, but since there is a "ru" at the end I wanted to translate it as "Estol",

My second reasoning is that I went to the translated WN to check up on this spelling specifically and they also went with "Estol" which is why even though it might contradict earlier chapters I decided to change the name. Of course, I'm not saying "my version is the correct one", unless the author themselves gives us an actual english name for the country, both works fine, I just decided to change it to suit what I know about japanese.

I also wanted to talk about this in the bonus page at the end but two "fun facts" would have been too cramped on one page, and I didn't want to make two bonus page to bloat the chapter. Anyways, bye

FYI the J-Novel translated LN use "Estoll", so I say you are good.

 

[dearmusic]

Woot! Another chapter! Thank you so much! I shall join your friend in asking you for translations.

Also...

What even is that? Did they carve a mountain over time and turn it into a city? How long would that take. Who would start with that, considering it is also an island of all things? Well whatever.

Scoring scale 4-10
...

Dude... That's a lot of analysis...

 

[Grimmycoffee]

"It doesn't seem like they're hostile."

They're not, until you just provoke them that is.

I know her reason to attack them isn't exactly wrong, but is there no moment of "Oh, I might've fucked up" in that brain of hers?

 

[Madologist]

Your rating got me curious, what would you consider a perfect 10 for each of the three categories? What sort of thing(s) would you be looking for?

For layout, first the design has to pass feasibility. If the first thoughts that comes to mind when viewing a city are
-how was this built?
-why was this built?
then you already have failed in the basic layout of the city. Next baseline to pass is scale. Is the city too large to be built or too small for what it's supposed to be. After this I can finally rate the actual layout design.
Form follows function, is the key in any good design. A coastal trade city and a border fortress city will obviously be rated differently. The former should accomodate for shipping, trade, markets and whatnot first and foremost, while the latter should be sectioned with walls within walls, be utilitarian and serve the needs of the military. A key feature too is how actually living and breathing the city feels like. An overly optimised SimCity isn't realistic. While city planning is a thing, it tends to be more organic and serve the needs of the time, thus resulting overtime in a natural chaotic, but functioning mess that actual cities are. With fantasy especially, organic design trumps optimised planning in my opinion. Cities afterall grow into shape over a long period of time, not fall from design heaven built as.

In terms of defensiveness the main questions are
-how hard it's to assault?
-how hard it's to siege?
If the city is clearly lacking in defenses and this is a dangerous world with monsters and wars and so on, then it's clearly inadequate to actually exist.
When rating defenses, one has to realise that no perfect and impregnable fort actually exist. Given enough time and resources, any wall and fort can be hammered and grinded to dust. Not to mention just simply starving them out. The base function of any defenses are to halt the enemy, buy time and to expend their resources. If an approaching army looks at your walls and goes "nope, gotta take this slowly" then you pass.
If a frontal assault is unthinkable or too costly, then begins the siege. A siege is either a concentrated attempt to starve out a garrison or a methodical slow approach to take down the defenses. The former generally is how most sieges play out. Cities especially rarely stockpile enough food to last for long and thus cave out quickly. This is where the strengths of forts can turn into weaknesses - a narrow approach works both ways. The chokepoints can be fortified from the outside, allowing the sieger to easily keep the defenders contained with minimal force and move on to their next objective, halt and delay failed. If you can't break the siege with a sally out against an equal or a smaller force, then your defenses are quite useless to you. Enjoy starvation. So while multiple access points, be they gates or ports, are multiple weaknesses, they also are good at forcing the attacker to expend more forces to keep the defenders in check too. A fine balance between access and inaccessabilty must be considered in the end.
But not always can you take your time and starve the city out. Relief forces might be approaching, your forces might be too unruly and unfit for the patient task or you yourself might lack the supply for it. Then comes the bombarding and poking. A single powerful wall might seem fitting, but a skilled sapper, a powerful enough bombard/mage or a siege tower might make it all for naught. Thus instead of just one big wall, defense in depth is always preferrable. Multiple walls and battlements covering each other, like the Theodosian walls of old, sectioning the city, so that each part is a minor fort of its own, keeping the older inner city walls in function and so on. In some cases the very layout of the city can help to turn it into a makeshift fortress once the main walls are breached.
So to summarise: a good defensive rating comes from being forced to siege it instead of a quick assault being an option, the city being difficult to siege, be it just surround & starve or the slow approach and finally what options the defenders themselves have.

Overall design and details are probably most subjective parts of rating a city. But baseline it falls down to whether I go
"Oh a rough circle with a river running through it." flips page
or
"Well that looks interesting."
when I see a depiction of a city.
Taking the previous city in this series as an example. It's okay, and that's pretty much all I can say about it. A forgettable fantasy city amongst dozens of others. So while this Utofia is completely unfeasible, it was interesting enough to warrant an analysis and breakdown from me.
It truly just falls down to how interesting the design is to look at and gow much time will you spend looking at it. A well designed and detailed city has many points to stare at and some even have hidden details you miss at first glance.

Tl;dr
An excellent rating requires a layout that makes sense, serves its purpose and is actually feasible to build. The defenses are strong enough to withstand an assault and are difficult and costly to siege. The overall design must be eye drawing and prompts the viewer to spend time to marvel at the various interesting details of it, of which there are too many to count.

 

[sailorarashi]

Taking the previous city in this series as an example. It's okay, and that's pretty much all I can say about it. A forgettable fantasy city amongst dozens of others. So while this Utofia is completely unfeasible, it was interesting enough to warrant an analysis and breakdown from me.

Weirdly I had the opposite reaction, since it looks nothing like the city described in the novel (the castle should be in the center, the city should be a large plain divided into distinct townships one of which is largely empty and visibly under construction, etc) my immediate thought was "The artist just badly copied Minas Tirith" making it largely forgettable.

 

[Enalis]

Thank you for your work

 

[Madologist]

Weirdly I had the opposite reaction, since it looks nothing like the city described in the novel (the castle should be in the center, the city should be a large plain divided into distinct townships one of which is largely empty and visibly under construction, etc) my immediate thought was "The artist just badly copied Minas Tirith" making it largely forgettable.

Iron Town of Mononoke Hime and Minas Tirith had a special child is how I'd describe this thing. It clearly takes inspiration from both.

Funny that the novels have a lot more interesting city design from your brief description. Gives the implication that the capital is rapidly expanding due to the new steel industry, or that it has recentlyish been moved and is still being built. World building!

 

[albirew]

its so true, at one point our group just kinda said "lets put the SFX next to the japanese one or in the boarder

officials TL also do it this way so why not:

 

[Amplify]

For layout, first the design has to pass feasibility. If the first thoughts that comes to mind when viewing a city are
-how was this built?
-why was this built?
then you already have failed in the basic layout of the city. Next baseline to pass is scale. Is the city too large to be built or too small for what it's supposed to be. After this I can finally rate the actual layout design.
Form follows function, is the key in any good design. A coastal trade city and a border fortress city will obviously be rated differently. The former should accomodate for shipping, trade, markets and whatnot first and foremost, while the latter should be sectioned with walls within walls, be utilitarian and serve the needs of the military. A key feature too is how actually living and breathing the city feels like. An overly optimised SimCity isn't realistic. While city planning is a thing, it tends to be more organic and serve the needs of the time, thus resulting overtime in a natural chaotic, but functioning mess that actual cities are. With fantasy especially, organic design trumps optimised planning in my opinion. Cities afterall grow into shape over a long period of time, not fall from design heaven built as.

In terms of defensiveness the main questions are
-how hard it's to assault?
-how hard it's to siege?
If the city is clearly lacking in defenses and this is a dangerous world with monsters and wars and so on, then it's clearly inadequate to actually exist.
When rating defenses, one has to realise that no perfect and impregnable fort actually exist. Given enough time and resources, any wall and fort can be hammered and grinded to dust. Not to mention just simply starving them out. The base function of any defenses are to halt the enemy, buy time and to expend their resources. If an approaching army looks at your walls and goes "nope, gotta take this slowly" then you pass.
If a frontal assault is unthinkable or too costly, then begins the siege. A siege is either a concentrated attempt to starve out a garrison or a methodical slow approach to take down the defenses. The former generally is how most sieges play out. Cities especially rarely stockpile enough food to last for long and thus cave out quickly. This is where the strengths of forts can turn into weaknesses - a narrow approach works both ways. The chokepoints can be fortified from the outside, allowing the sieger to easily keep the defenders contained with minimal force and move on to their next objective, halt and delay failed. If you can't break the siege with a sally out against an equal or a smaller force, then your defenses are quite useless to you. Enjoy starvation. So while multiple access points, be they gates or ports, are multiple weaknesses, they also are good at forcing the attacker to expend more forces to keep the defenders in check too. A fine balance between access and inaccessabilty must be considered in the end.
But not always can you take your time and starve the city out. Relief forces might be approaching, your forces might be too unruly and unfit for the patient task or you yourself might lack the supply for it. Then comes the bombarding and poking. A single powerful wall might seem fitting, but a skilled sapper, a powerful enough bombard/mage or a siege tower might make it all for naught. Thus instead of just one big wall, defense in depth is always preferrable. Multiple walls and battlements covering each other, like the Theodosian walls of old, sectioning the city, so that each part is a minor fort of its own, keeping the older inner city walls in function and so on. In some cases the very layout of the city can help to turn it into a makeshift fortress once the main walls are breached.
So to summarise: a good defensive rating comes from being forced to siege it instead of a quick assault being an option, the city being difficult to siege, be it just surround & starve or the slow approach and finally what options the defenders themselves have.

Overall design and details are probably most subjective parts of rating a city. But baseline it falls down to whether I go
"Oh a rough circle with a river running through it." flips page
or
"Well that looks interesting."
when I see a depiction of a city.
Taking the previous city in this series as an example. It's okay, and that's pretty much all I can say about it. A forgettable fantasy city amongst dozens of others. So while this Utofia is completely unfeasible, it was interesting enough to warrant an analysis and breakdown from me.
It truly just falls down to how interesting the design is to look at and gow much time will you spend looking at it. A well designed and detailed city has many points to stare at and some even have hidden details you miss at first glance.

Tl;dr
An excellent rating requires a layout that makes sense, serves its purpose and is actually feasible to build. The defenses are strong enough to withstand an assault and are difficult and costly to siege. The overall design must be eye drawing and prompts the viewer to spend time to marvel at the various interesting details of it, of which there are too many to count.

I have to ask, do your ratings take things like magic and its availability to the general populous, as well as the different races into account?

For example, a floating city couldn't exist on earth but you could possibly have one in a fantasy world populated by bird men or something. Such a city would be impossible to siege too if flight for the other races or methods beyond "have a birdman carry you up to it" didn't exist.

 

[Laisy]

Funny that the novels have a lot more interesting city design from your brief description. Gives the implication that the capital is rapidly expanding due to the new steel industry, or that it has recentlyish been moved and is still being built. World building

Funnily enough,

Spoiler

The rapid expansion is actually tied into the plot of this arc. It should be revealed in the next chapter so I won't spoil much in case someone do continue translating this.

 

[Madologist]

I have to ask, do your ratings take things like magic and its availability to the general populous, as well as the different races into account?

For example, a floating city couldn't exist on earth but you could possibly have one in a fantasy world populated by bird men or something. Such a city would be impossible to siege too if flight for the other races or methods beyond "have a birdman carry you up to it" didn't exist.

Yes, to an extent. Basically, depends on are special powers common or luxury of the few chosen individuals. If everyone can use telekinesis to lift boulders and become living construction engines, then the feasibility rating is much more forgiving. However, such things must be somewhat common place then. Even if Bob the wizard could technically build the mage tower of infinite height alone, would he, is essentially the question then.

One thing I rarely properly address is how they actually defend against magic and magical beings. Fireballs and explosion spells are essentially cannons and artillery, this should affect the design of walls and other defenses. If not the shape, then atleast there should be wards and barriers in place and so on. Additionally, many fantasy worlds have to tackle with flight way earlier than us. Where are their sky defenses against flying creatures, air drop spells and so on. Since most authors ignore such things and just slap fantasy elements on essentially a snap shot collage of history, I rarely nitpick and address them too. Unless it is clearly obvious they should be, ie. the setting constantly having flying monsters attack cities with nothing being done about it.

In short, if it seems that they can in the setting build fantastical things, then they are allowed to exist with no explanation given. However, if it doesn't seem like they have magitech to allow it, neither will I. Though, some things are too outrageous to accept no matter what.