Secondly, the spacing of the paragraphs being 1.15 seemed too compact during the drafting of the story, which makes it harder to read and follow the story (based on the earlier versions); as such I added an extra space in order for the readers to have a sort of "break" in between paragraphs.
But your paragraphs are one sentence long. Instead of 'too compact,' you get unnecessarily loose, large, whatever word you want to use. From one extreme you didn't like, you went to the other extreme that I, a reader, don't like.
And I mention it in combination with how you group your sentences. On its own, an extra space in order for the readers to have a sort of "break" in between paragraphs is not THAT bad. BUT, considering how almost every paragraph is one sentence long, it becomes hard to read. My eyes wandered all over the text as I was reading.
This phrase doesn't necessarily require much information as the entire prologue was the summarization of events after the war. By context, the "rebuild" was in context of repairing loss infrastructure, settlements, and other structures that have been destroyed or damaged during the war.
You seem to misunderstand something. With bold, I highlighted a weird part that is phrased(worded) poorly. It doesn't matter what the context is if no one uses such a phrase. To me, it looks like a poor machine translation, a google translate. I can try to guess the meaning behind it, but I use the extra time to do it. It ruins my pacing as I read and ruins my immersion.
I agree that it is weirdly phrased, but it is weirdly phrased as such as I was translating the story to Japanese at this time to a Japanese site (syosetsu). In order for the English text to be translated in a way that it could be understood, I written it in this way as it translated into a more understood sentence.
Why should I care? I'm not an author who understands you or cares for your commitments. I'm a reader who reads in English. Why should I care if you translate or not? I only care about the English version. If I don't like the quality, I won't give a damn whether there is any reason behind it. I will simply drop the story.
By the meaning "desert his march", it means to abandon the army. This phrase is used synonymous to "desert his army" as "march" and "army" were once synonymous to each other since when thinking of a "march" one would think of a large group or an army in this context.
I understand that it means to desert an army. I don't understand why you use a phrase that I haven't seen being used anywhere. I'm not even sure if it exists. Again, it's like a poor machine translation.
Again, this is due to the time I was translating the story to Japanese.
Again, why should I care?
By context, one would already think of either an ideology or religion, as faithful inherently means "to be religious" or "loyal". Despite this, you are right that he was never a faithful man, but I didn't write much of his romantic life as the prologue was the summarization of events after the war.
Once again, it's a machine-translated phrase. It doesn't matter what the context is
if people never use it in the said context. I have never seen it being used like that. And it creates a dissonance when I read it. I literally stop in the middle of my reading to understand it. Just because faithful has a synonymous meaning doesn't mean you can use it.
And again, you misunderstand something. The few sentences that I found weird are EXAMPLES. Your whole text is riddled with poorly worded phrases and grammar mistakes. I CAN'T understand what was intended and what is a mistake when I was reading. That's why when you say, "oh, this should be understandable from the context," no. No, it's not. Because, multiple times, I've read weird phrases before. How should I know that you use the word faithful in the context of having strong faith and not in the context of being faithful to a romantic partner? How can I be sure that this wasn't a mistake when you've made mistakes multiple times before?
This is because the prologue is a rapid fast summarization of the events prior to his reincarnation. The readers do not need to know what meals he eats, how large his castle or manor is, how large his armies were, or the tactics he had employed during his battles.
They simply need to know a brief explanation of the things the MC did before he was reincarnated. While, yes, I can write a proper explanation of tactics used and description of each battle, but that would prolong a prologue; which, in writing, shouldn't be done as it would be too overly explained.
First of all, I've read past the prologue. Secondly, you misunderstood what I wanted to say again. I'm not sure if I use this word correctly, but I want prose. You offer to write yet another description of actions. I don't know how to explain this, as I don't know the necessary words. Your prologue doesn't feel like a story. I felt like I was reading a report or an account. And it's not only a prologue, as your first chapter is the same. I felt like I was reading an account rather than a story.
While confusing, I have written the phrases in a way that the readers should be able to understand based on context.
For me, you didn't. It's simply confusing even with the context.
This is structured as dialogue before action. In which I have written due to me writing it as a Japanese novel and in Japanese novels I have read, dialogues are not sentenced similarly like in the west by which the character is said to have spoken before the action they took.
Western example: "But, sir, how could we win this fight?" says the squire as he unsheathes his sword from his belt, feeling unease.
Japanese example:
"But, sir, how could we win this fight?" (「しかし、どうすればこの戦いに勝つことができるでしょうか？」)
The squire unsheathes his sword from his belt, unease is shown from his face. (従者は彼のベルトから彼の剣を外し、彼の顔から不安が示されます。)
Again, you misunderstood what I mean, but this time it was a mistake on your side. Not only do you ignore the phrase, "Why it's illogical?" you don't remember nor check your own story.
This Comes before in text:
"Anyways, can you go and feed your mother?"
He poured stew into a wooden bowl and handed it to me. ??????????
There was something in the middle.
This comes after in text:
For my safety, she quarantined herself.
Before talking about the actual problem that flew over your head, I will mention the following. I don't care about Japanese dialogues and whatnot. I am a reader, and I read a novel in English. I don't give a shit about how it sounds or looks in Japanese.
Now to the actual problem. The mc is five years old. His mother is ill with a highly contagious disease and QUARANTINED herself FOR HIS SAFETY. What does a father do to his five-year-old son? He asks his son to bring food to his mother. Do you even know what quarantine means?
It's fucking illogical no matter how you spin it. If you say that the father didn't know what quarantine is, how did MC's mother know what it is? If you say MC insisted on it, why didn't his mother oppose him more about this? She only said to him that he shouldn't wipe her, but other than that, she was happy despite him violating the quarantine. Also, how could MC insist on it if you say he can't talk to adults like an adult? How is this logical?
You might argue with me back and forth and find a plausible excuse. But do you know what is the main problem? That this excuse will only exist in this thread. Because your text, your story doesn't have ANY explanation on how an apparently caring mother is okay with her son violating the quarantine.
Sorry if I went on a tangent on this one, I adore military science and history and have to explain why I have written it as such.
You adore it, but the things you wrote HERE, in this reply, don't correspond with what you've written in the text, your story. And I would call at least half of what you wrote(both here and in your story) an asspull. And I won't lie or pretend to be okay. You managed to make me rage with those asspulls you wrote here.
Throughout history, no general of excellent stratagem has ever won without showing care of logistics. By context, the MC is fighting a war against a Alliance of various kingdoms, principalities, and empires, whereas he is siding with a coalition of city-states. The Alliance is not only larger, but they also have more resources, more people, and more land to feed their armies where as the city-states or republics are limited to what they have. Even Alexander had to care for his logistics, but the difference between Alexander and the MC is that Alexander has control over his logistics while the MC does not as that is provided by the city-states not from his own territory.
First. "Those against them were specifically from the various Republic city-states that hated the authority of monarchs. However, they were weak,
all they had was wealth and without an army to project
Here we can see how those city-states can provide adequate logistics.
Second. How the fuck a general doesn't control his own logistic? Logistic isn't some magical animal. It's basically long caravans that are asked for and getting approved by higher-ups. By saying he doesn't control his own logistics is like saying that he doesn't have a right to ask for things, that people in city-states don't send anything to him, and that some people tamper with the papers. But guess what? You never mention it in the story! Is there a mention of political movements behind the scene to make him fail and stop the logistics? Is there a mention of how spies set those caravans on fire? Is there a mention where you say that HE DIDN'T FUCKING CONTROL HIS OWN LOGISTICS? HOW THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW THIS? You fucking didn't mention it even once!!!!!!!!!!!!
but the winds were not in his favor and his defeat would be caused by the lack of logistics from the city-states. This fucking phrase doesn't explain fucking anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thirdly, you will say that you did mention the city-states didn't have an army. And the army is part of logistics. Well, guess what? You didn't mention that there are ONLY city-states and Alliance and nothing else. SO, they COULD hire mercenaries from a third party.
Fourthly. Did his territory evaporate or what? What the fuck happened to it? Once again. IN the FUCKING story. In reply, you say he gets logistics not from his territory but from city-states. Fucking why? Why didn't you explain it in the story if it's crucial to understand why his logistic failed him?
Fifthly.
With this first major victory, many believed that the war would conclude in the victory of the city-states, but oh the misery as they had misjudged. Why the fuck did many believed that MC could win, if you say in your reply to me that Alliance has more resources?
Yes, he seized a capital, but that is just the capital of the Kingdom he once served in, not the capital of the whole Alliance by which there is no official one. In modern understanding, think of Russia invading Finland but by doing so Russia is fighting the whole of NATO; even if Russia took Finland's capital and decimated Finland's army, they still need to take the capitals of the majority of NATO members that they are fighting.
This is actually a nice reply from you. You said that everything is understandable from the context to readers. I didn't understand that Alliance is an actual alliance of kingdoms, empires, and so on. I thought it was a fancy name for a single kingdom.
By further context, I written down the MC's rebellion during the prologue similar to the 2nd Punic War in which no matter how many cities Hannibal took against Rome and no matter how many tens of thousands of soldiers Hannibal killed, Rome would always be able to match Hannibal's army and eventually defeat him throughout the years. Similar to the 2nd Punic War, the MC is fighting with an army that he was provided with by the coalition of Republics against the entirety of the Alliance
Cool... Do you know how many people know about the punic war and find it logical? And how many people would actually think of the said punic war when reading your story?
To add more into this, even if the MC wanted a truce would the Alliance accept it? The MC had burned down their lands, conquered their cities, butchered their armies, and humiliated their dignity. If you were a King in the Alliance and the MC sent a truce to not only you but to everyone he had fought, would you accept it after being humiliated in battle, and if you were the only one to accept; everyone would question your authority and dignity.
Who the fuck asks for their opinion? You simply retreat and reinforce the defense line while your logistics get sorted out. By truce, I meant that he could've retreated instead of pushing forward when it's hurting him. Taking a brief respite would've been a more proper term.
To any asspull that you will mention.
MC knows EVERYTHING about the army and generals because he fucking led the army of the Alliance for seven years.
He clearly excels in siege warfare.
To the surprise and astonishment of the [Alliance], the siege ended in just a month. Which means he can defend crucial castles and forts.
Especially when the King favored the upper class rather than the common people that have actual achievement that deserve more prestige and rewards. Everyone who actually knows how to lead armies would either defect or be killed because they are commoners, and they aren't favored. A large army without a proper chain of command is useless, especially in the sieges.
Alliance's armies would take much more time to get ready to attack him in return because their armies are larger. No matter how good their logistics are, they will be slower.
Not only that, but the Alliance's armies are going to march through burnt-out land while trying to reach the land of city-states.
And you know what? It doesn't matter if you prove me wrong here. Because you didn't mention it anywhere in the text.
Furthermore, in order to carry momentum and take advantage of his victories the MC has no other choice but to keep fighting in order to capitalize the lead he has. Remember, he is fighting a larger alliance than the republics, if he were to give them time by withdrawing and rebuild his army the Alliance would also be able to rebuild theirs and form a much larger army than his. No matter how much of a genius he is, if he has an army of 10,000 versus 150,000 than he would be defeated by attrition alone especially if both armies are equally disciplined, equally motivated, and equally equipped no matter how much time he is given he would never be able to match the Alliance in terms of numbers.
He doesn't need to seize the momentum if it would lead to everyone's demise. He needs to secure the logistics and his rear.
[Alliance] adapted a strategic policy of avoiding battle with him and prioritized besieging the city-states.
You see this here? It means he is a retard.
It means that not only did Alliance bypass him, which you didn't explain how. Instead of retreating back to secure his rear, he decides to basically kill his army and himself without a sliver of hope. Wow, what a good general. I'm probably too stupid to understand his brilliance.
You might once again explain whatever you want. Write me walls of text about how I don't understand this or that. Explain how this or that happened. But it doesn't matter. Because it's not in the story.
After writing such a lengthy reply, I will try to be concise here. I'm not an author who reviewed your work. I'm a reader. I don't care what you had in your head. I read what I get. Even if the story inside your head is logical and entertaining, what I got in the form of a written story is shit. The only way to get a FULL picture is through reading. Because I DON'T have access to your mind and your thoughts. That's why ALL of the things I mentioned, IN COMBINATION(!!!), doesn't make ANY sense to me. It means that on their own, they might not be as bad. But when you combine ALL OF THAT INTO ONE CHAPTER, it turns to shit. It's not about ONE EXAMPLE being bad. ALL OF IT, TOGETHER!!! Together, do you understand this? Why the fuck, do I even need to explain this. I want to scream.
I have read examples of medieval executions, and I could have written down more grotesque ways he could die and be tortured before his death, but this one is the one I have written as it was the least inhumane one I have thought of.
The MC had burned down their lands, conquered their cities, butchered their armies, and humiliated their dignity.
I have read examples of medieval executions, and I could have written down more grotesque ways he could die and be tortured before his death, but this one is the one I have written as it was the least inhumane one I have thought of.
The MC had burned down their lands, conquered their cities, butchered their armies, and humiliated their dignity.
