Yep, that's him, with all the mentioned makings of a great king.
He just needs to lay off fisstech, and stop going into chess clubs. Chess does scrambles your brains, just read some quotes of famous players.
Yep, that's him, with all the mentioned makings of a great king.
He just needs to lay off fisstech, and stop going into chess clubs. Chess does scrambles your brains, just read some quotes of famous players.
Some more thoughts about the Wild Hunt's politics
1. I, honestly, am a bit disappointed at the "Everything or nothing" level of the Third Nilfgaardian Invasion as it seems to want to wrap things up a little too neatly. It seems to me that you could easily do the invasion as purely a grab for the territory of Temeria, Aedirn, and Lyria rather than actually the entirety of the North. The invasion by Redania and Kaedwin means that you could have them fighting because they know their next but after they conquer Temeria, they might stop at the Redania and Kaedwin border.
I think they were trying to resolve the situation in the North completely, especially with Ciri potentially ascending to become Empress, when it would have been better to have the situation just be Nilfgaard nibbling at the borders of the North one nation at a time. Taking Cintra as a massive accomplishment for Nilfgaard even if they considered it a loss than a victory.
I think the game would have been more interesting, personally, with only Temeria at stake.
2. I would have liked to have some more insight into the idea the Guilds are the biggest enemy Emperor Emhyr is facing back in Nilfgaard. We have the erroneous belief that monarchs aren't the kind of people who have to deal with issues of finance. I would have liked some Guild heads in the Vizima Palace mentioning that Emhyr's invasion was disrupting their business operations tremednously and they were pressuring him to come to a quick settlement. It's also possible they're the ones DRIVING the invasion. Basically, "Why is Emhyr invading now? Why would he retreat or make peace?"
3. I'd like to hear a little more about the role of religion in the setting. What's Radovid's relationship to the Eternal Flame? Is he going to make it the national religion of Redania? Is the Eternal working to propagandize Radovid as a savior while demonizing Nilfgaard? Is the Nilfgaard targeting the religions of the North to force them under their boot or replace them with their Sun worship/atheism?
I'd also have liked to have seen the Order of the Flaming Rose's knights in the Redanian camps, separate and fanatical and dangerous.
1. I, honestly, am a bit disappointed at the "Everything or nothing" level of the Third Nilfgaardian Invasion as it seems to want to wrap things up a little too neatly. It seems to me that you could easily do the invasion as purely a grab for the territory of Temeria, Aedirn, and Lyria rather than actually the entirety of the North. The invasion by Redania and Kaedwin means that you could have them fighting because they know their next but after they conquer Temeria, they might stop at the Redania and Kaedwin border.
I think they were trying to resolve the situation in the North completely, especially with Ciri potentially ascending to become Empress, when it would have been better to have the situation just be Nilfgaard nibbling at the borders of the North one nation at a time. Taking Cintra as a massive accomplishment for Nilfgaard even if they considered it a loss than a victory.
I think the game would have been more interesting, personally, with only Temeria at stake.
2. I would have liked to have some more insight into the idea the Guilds are the biggest enemy Emperor Emhyr is facing back in Nilfgaard. We have the erroneous belief that monarchs aren't the kind of people who have to deal with issues of finance. I would have liked some Guild heads in the Vizima Palace mentioning that Emhyr's invasion was disrupting their business operations tremednously and they were pressuring him to come to a quick settlement. It's also possible they're the ones DRIVING the invasion. Basically, "Why is Emhyr invading now? Why would he retreat or make peace?"
3. I'd like to hear a little more about the role of religion in the setting. What's Radovid's relationship to the Eternal Flame? Is he going to make it the national religion of Redania? Is the Eternal working to propagandize Radovid as a savior while demonizing Nilfgaard? Is the Nilfgaard targeting the religions of the North to force them under their boot or replace them with their Sun worship/atheism?
I'd also have liked to have seen the Order of the Flaming Rose's knights in the Redanian camps, separate and fanatical and dangerous.
1. Actually, I believe that Emhyr's plan was to conquer only the lands between Yaruga and Pontar. It seems very likely that in terms of troops and finances it was his goal, and he was simply not ready to take over the entire North, but Radovid messed up this plan. That's what Radovid counted on - if to prevent Emhyr from ending the war, and to make him fight on, Nilfgaard would be unable not just to take over the rest, but will have to eventually abandon NML. With a dwindling domestic support Emhyr wouldn't be able to raise another army for the final push into Kaedwen and Redania.
Emhyr grossly miscalculated when he decided to winter in Temeria, while expecting Radovid's emissaries to arrive to sue for peace and negotiate the new borders. While he was waiting, Radovid united Redanian and Kaedweni armies and was ready to face Nilfgaardian forces, which by that time were pretty much devastated by Temerian/Aedernian resistance, guerrilla, and desertion. As soon as Radovid's troops crossed into Kaedwen, Emhyr should have crossed the Pontar, does not matter how tired his troops were, and finished the war right there and than.
2. I totally agree. It is a shame that we have so little about inner workings of Nilfgaardian politics.
3. Ditto. It is such a fertile theme, but it was completely skipped in favor of Geralt's personal story.
Emhyr grossly miscalculated when he decided to winter in Temeria, while expecting Radovid's emissaries to arrive to sue for peace and negotiate the new borders. While he was waiting, Radovid united Redanian and Kaedweni armies and was ready to face Nilfgaardian forces, which by that time were pretty much devastated by Temerian/Aedernian resistance, guerrilla, and desertion. As soon as Radovid's troops crossed into Kaedwen, Emhyr should have crossed the Pontar, does not matter how tired his troops were, and finished the war right there and than.
2. I totally agree. It is a shame that we have so little about inner workings of Nilfgaardian politics.
3. Ditto. It is such a fertile theme, but it was completely skipped in favor of Geralt's personal story.
Last edited:
A couple of answers spring to mine just from thoughts.
1. That they were trying to minimize the connections to previous games for new players as "Witch Hunter" establishes from the start what their job, purpose, and aesthetic is supposed to be.
2. They were going for a more urbane and Renaissance-level technology level with the platemail knights being out of place by comparison.
3. Many players are sympathetic to the Order of the Flaming Rose while the depiction of the Witch Hunters is closer to 14th century Nazis.
4. The Order of the Flaming Rose as heavy medieval cavalry would be in the front lines while the Witch Hunters would be doing an entirely different job behind the front lines.
5. Radovid patronizes the Order of the Flaming Rose while Novigrad is supposed to be neutral.
Honestly, that kind of makes Emhyr look like an idiot, only because the exact same thing happened in the 2nd war. Nilfgaard had to face opposition from the entire North, and it was impossible to negotiate with any of them bilaterally. The closest thing that amounted to a bilateral agreement was with Kaedwen which still fought against Nilfgaard, and in any case that deal was the worst thing that Nilfgaard ever did in the war as it deprived them from accessing the Pontar from the East.
The only way this entire war can make some sense is if there is a canon established in TW2. Roche's path, with Henselt conquering Vergen but being killed. That way, Aedirn is completely defenseless, Kaedwen crumbles and makes it relatively easy to incorporate into the Redanian war effort (I am still convinced it should not be in the form of a direct conquest however) . In such a scenario, one can understand Emhyr thinking that Radovid would most likely be inclined to bilateral negotiation as opposed to keep fighting as he would be alone in doing so. But in the scenario of both Redania and Kaedwen coming to a strong bilateral arrangement in TW2, it is folly on the part of Emhyr to think that he can isolate them from one another or expect them to just give up and allow Nilfgaard to reach the Pontar. Henselt in fact mentions the importance of Temeria in Loc Muinne as a buffer zone.
And this just strikes me as lazy, as the devs decided to ignore 3/4s of TW2 in favor of one pathway.
Yep, I agree. It is glaringly obvious that Loc Muinne's massacre on Roche's path with Henselt being killed and both Aedirn and Kaedwen in chaos is TW3 default starting state, with inconsequential adjustments for some of our other choices. Obviously, I do not like an idea of Henselt, who survived TW2 and united Aedirn and Kedwen, mysteriously dying in the right moment, which would be a consequence of any other state. Also with Henselt alive and having a united army of Aedirn and Kaedwen behind him, I don't really see how Nilfgaard could have conquered Aedirn so fast.
I don't really complain because it is my preferred way through TW2, and because in this case the actions and expectations of the kings in TW3 make sense. And I don't really want to think about all inconsistent motivations and stupidity popping up if we take some other starting state. I am sort of super-charitable here, after seeing how much work CDPR did with TW3, and with some imaginative adjustment, I can convert all this political stuff in TW3 into a story to my liking. It is far from perfect, but sure beats a crap out of DAI, for example.
I don't really complain because it is my preferred way through TW2, and because in this case the actions and expectations of the kings in TW3 make sense. And I don't really want to think about all inconsistent motivations and stupidity popping up if we take some other starting state. I am sort of super-charitable here, after seeing how much work CDPR did with TW3, and with some imaginative adjustment, I can convert all this political stuff in TW3 into a story to my liking. It is far from perfect, but sure beats a crap out of DAI, for example.
Last edited:
Hell,
The entire defense which King Henselt gives for not only sparing his life but allowing him to conquer the Pontar Valley is, essentially, that by conquering the Pontar Valley and adding it to Kaedwin, the country is now in a position too strong for Nilfgaard to just casually conquer and will require Nilfgaard to actually enter into fair and legtimate negotiations.
It didn't stop me from stabbing him but that doesn't matter because it was a good argument.
My own interpretation of the conflict wasn't that Emhyr was going to invade solely the Southernmost portion of the North but was going for the "all or nothing" deal and proceed to defeat them completely.
This isn't that much smarter either because Emhyr doesn't have the domestic stability, support, or situational advantages to do so. I mean, Emhyr INVADES SKELLIGE which (unless he's making an invasion of Novigrad via them as a port base*) is nonsensical since they're not participating in the war and is just opening a new front on very hostile territory.
* I advanced this theory a couple of times.
The entire defense which King Henselt gives for not only sparing his life but allowing him to conquer the Pontar Valley is, essentially, that by conquering the Pontar Valley and adding it to Kaedwin, the country is now in a position too strong for Nilfgaard to just casually conquer and will require Nilfgaard to actually enter into fair and legtimate negotiations.
It didn't stop me from stabbing him but that doesn't matter because it was a good argument.
My own interpretation of the conflict wasn't that Emhyr was going to invade solely the Southernmost portion of the North but was going for the "all or nothing" deal and proceed to defeat them completely.
This isn't that much smarter either because Emhyr doesn't have the domestic stability, support, or situational advantages to do so. I mean, Emhyr INVADES SKELLIGE which (unless he's making an invasion of Novigrad via them as a port base*) is nonsensical since they're not participating in the war and is just opening a new front on very hostile territory.
* I advanced this theory a couple of times.
Reading through the last posts I feel like W3 does something many games do: Tell us somebody is really smart or a brilliant commander, but they never actually do something particularly smart. It probably would have exploded the scope of the game but it would have been nice to actually have a shift in power during the game like a city being conquered or an army defeated. Even just as an off-screen event that is then discussed.
In regards to Nilfgaard's forces being 'devastated' by resistance, I don't think that was the case at all. Looking back at the figures from the second war, Nilfgaard can clearly raise forces in the hundreds of thousands (Up to 350,000 men, apparently). If the previous conflict was any indication of their fighting prowess, then taking Lyria and Rivia would have been almost effortless, especially with Temeria and Aedirn in chaos. Aedirn would have been similarly easy to conquer after everything that happened in TW2, and in TW3 you can see how quickly Nilfgaard has already occupied all of Temeria after winning the 3-day battle that Roche mentions. I actually believe that the only reasons Redania/Kaedwen was a threat to Nilfgaard was because of the number of troops that they had to use in order to occupy and pacify the conquered kingdoms.
As for guerrilla warfare, which people seem to be bringing up a lot, this is a 14th-16th century-based fantasy setting we're talking about. No matter how you look at it, guerrilla warfare was never even a real issue for armies from those times. Of course, CDPR could be taking creative liberties, I guess, but I never got the impression from TW3 that Nilfgaard was actually suffering from the Temerian resistance or desertion (Which happened quite regularly at the time).
I think a lot of Nilfgaard's vast forces were actually stretched pretty thin after their early overwhelming success in the war, which is what made Radovid so dangerous. I guess it's also possible that Emhyr was unable to raise as many troops for this war as he did for the previous one. I wish we'd been given some figures in regards to the armies in TW3.
Hey, I did a 4th part of my Politics thread analyzing the military progress of the 4th Nilfgaard War.
The Third Nilfgaard War
WARRRRRRRR!
The Third Nilfgaard War
WARRRRRRRR!
By resistance I mean regular army first, and then an on-going war by attrition. Fast-moving Temerian and Aedernian units harassing Nilfgaardians are probably similar to the Brotherhood without Banners from ASOIAF. It is a real threat.
Yes, I believe Emhyr was unable to raise enough troops to conquer the entire North, so the goal was to conquer only the lands between Yaruga and Pontar, and leave the rest to Radovid. Geralt mentioned this possibility in TW2 in conversation with Roche in LM, that Radovid and Emhyr can divide the entire North between them.
If to estimate the number of troops needed to conquer the entire North: very conservatively, every major kingdom can call about 20,000 troops, so a total number is 80,000. Plus smaller kingdoms like Lyria, and border kingdoms-protectorates of Temeria, probably will be able to provide 20,000 in total. So strength of the North is at least 100,000 men. Also, the North has enough fortified cities, with so-called defense multipliers, let's say, in a rage from 3 to 5 (you need at least 3 to 5 times more troops to make a siege or a storm successful).
Conquest is like a business venture, and it shouldn't be a matter of tactical brilliance, or ingenuity of generals fighting in evenly-balanced battles. To have a conquest with a reasonable chance of success, Emhyr would need at least 3-4 times more troops than the North can provide. So yes, 350,000-400,000 seems like a reasonable number. But I don't think that after two failed attempts nobility and industrialists were willing to invest that much. That's why we had the plot of TW2 - to prevent a Council from being created because the mages, as demonstrated on Sodden Hill, provide a HUGE force multiplier (hell, the Lodge with Sabrina simply eradicated two armies at Vergen). With Temeria and Aedirn without kings it would be reasonable to expect that mobilization of troops will be slower, and on lesser scale. Henselt was a threat because he would have gone to claim Upper Aedirn (or the whole of Aedirn) for himself, but his death, though desirable, was not necessary for the conquest to proceed. I would estimate that Emhyr had no more than 100,000-150,00 troops, enough to overrun Temeria and Aedirn, pretty much devastated by recent events, but absolutely not enough to take on the entire North. I think Emhyr was going with the plan Geralt mentioned - to divide the North between him and Radovid or Henselt, but Radovid had other plans.
Last edited:
^ I think this plan would only make sense if Henselt was already dead in TW2 and before the invasion commenced. If that's not the case, and Henselt is still alive when the conquest began, then I think Emhyr was kind of silly to think that Radovid and Henselt would be willing to negotiate without a fight to prevent the Empire from reaching the pontar. They are not stupid.
I am inclined to say that Emhyr probably didn't want to extend his conquests beyond the pontar, but in all but one event in TW2, he would have had to contend with both Redania and Kaedwen, and he couldn't possibly think they'd be willing to negotiate without breaking them in battle first. So, Emhyr had to pretty much mobilize a similarly sized army than that mobilized in the 2nd war. Especially since in this war, he doesn't have the benefit of having the Scoia'tael with him.
Which goes back to the point that, the way everything is presented, the whole invasion is conducted with the idea that Henselt died in TW2 and not conveniently within those 6 months.
I am inclined to say that Emhyr probably didn't want to extend his conquests beyond the pontar, but in all but one event in TW2, he would have had to contend with both Redania and Kaedwen, and he couldn't possibly think they'd be willing to negotiate without breaking them in battle first. So, Emhyr had to pretty much mobilize a similarly sized army than that mobilized in the 2nd war. Especially since in this war, he doesn't have the benefit of having the Scoia'tael with him.
Which goes back to the point that, the way everything is presented, the whole invasion is conducted with the idea that Henselt died in TW2 and not conveniently within those 6 months.
I agree with a lot of what you all are saying. I played the Witcher 2 multiple times and really regretted how very little of my decisions made an impact in Witcher 3. That being said, I don't think that the politics aspect of the story was dumbed down so much as reverted backwards (if that makes any sense.) I've played and beaten the original Witcher game several times and remember how the politics were virtually on the same level as they were for third game. Sure, they were present and were important, but they were not terribly detailed either, at least not to the extent of the sequel.
I would have liked to have seen a little more attention given towards politics in this story as well as some more detailed focus on the war with Nilfgaard. I remember in the books how that part of the story was sidelined in favor of Geralt's and Ciri's personal arcs, but it still received quite a bit of attention culminating in this big badass battle sequence. It would have been nice to see something similar here, but I found it easy to forgive considering that this is meant to be a personal story about our two leads (not to mention taking into account the ludicrous amount of time, money, and effort the developers would have had to put into this in an already mammoth-sized game.) Those are just my thoughts.
I would have liked to have seen a little more attention given towards politics in this story as well as some more detailed focus on the war with Nilfgaard. I remember in the books how that part of the story was sidelined in favor of Geralt's and Ciri's personal arcs, but it still received quite a bit of attention culminating in this big badass battle sequence. It would have been nice to see something similar here, but I found it easy to forgive considering that this is meant to be a personal story about our two leads (not to mention taking into account the ludicrous amount of time, money, and effort the developers would have had to put into this in an already mammoth-sized game.) Those are just my thoughts.
Reposted from the War thread for political purposes:
That's not necessarily a mistake @KnightofPhoenix but an unfortunate reality of the Shrodinger's Video Game in that if some events are going to be canonical and other events are going to be chosen then something has to give. Are some events less likely to occur than others? Yes, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to move forward anyway. In all likelihood, the Roche Path is the most likely one.
In which case, Saskia due to her mind-control by Philippa Eilhart is unable to exert any sort of resistance as is Henselt.
So, the Occam's Razor Canonical Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Path would be:
1. Kill Aryan
2. Kill Loredo
3. Roche Path
4. Kill Henselt
5. Kill or Spare Saskia
6. Save Triss
I'd say Save Anais due to the Witch Hunt but there's no sign of her in either Radovid or Natalis' hands, while the Conclave is toothless against Radovid. The above events GREATLY FAVOR Nilfgaard in the war.
1. Killing Aryan provides Nilfgaard with La Vallette castle and its forces.
2. Killing Loredo denies Henselt the province of Flotsam.
3. Roche's Path is obvious for many reasons.
4. Henselt's death for obvious reasons.
5. Saskia is mind-controlled or dead either way and in no condition to lead given her primary concern would be Philippa not the Rebellion.
6. Without Anais, Temeria is without any sort of monarch whatsoever and the chain of command is busted.
That's not necessarily a mistake @KnightofPhoenix but an unfortunate reality of the Shrodinger's Video Game in that if some events are going to be canonical and other events are going to be chosen then something has to give. Are some events less likely to occur than others? Yes, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to move forward anyway. In all likelihood, the Roche Path is the most likely one.
In which case, Saskia due to her mind-control by Philippa Eilhart is unable to exert any sort of resistance as is Henselt.
So, the Occam's Razor Canonical Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Path would be:
1. Kill Aryan
2. Kill Loredo
3. Roche Path
4. Kill Henselt
5. Kill or Spare Saskia
6. Save Triss
I'd say Save Anais due to the Witch Hunt but there's no sign of her in either Radovid or Natalis' hands, while the Conclave is toothless against Radovid. The above events GREATLY FAVOR Nilfgaard in the war.
1. Killing Aryan provides Nilfgaard with La Vallette castle and its forces.
2. Killing Loredo denies Henselt the province of Flotsam.
3. Roche's Path is obvious for many reasons.
4. Henselt's death for obvious reasons.
5. Saskia is mind-controlled or dead either way and in no condition to lead given her primary concern would be Philippa not the Rebellion.
6. Without Anais, Temeria is without any sort of monarch whatsoever and the chain of command is busted.
The way I see it, just like in real life, politics end when war starts. TW2 happened just before the war broke out, and that's when politics are at their peak; TW3 happens at a time of war, so from that perspective it is logical that the politics depicted in TW3 are not going to be as complex as they were in TW2.
Good to see this being debated. Finished TW3 this evening, and naturally I have my 2 cents.
I too was saddened by the apparent lack of continuity from TW2 - or the lack of inclusion of events and significances from it. I've read the first 3 Witcher books and fact is I was never impressed or bothered by the Ciri story line- I loved that TW1 and 2 had nothing to do with this whatosever.
Honest truth is that going Open World was a massive gamble because as is often the case it came at the expense of game focus - we always had breadth but didn't always have depth
Remember in Witcher 1 and 2 the lengthy, sprawling conversation you could have with Zoltan or Dandelion about politics or ideology?
This was only possible because the games borders were delimited. By the time of TW3 we knew and loved the characters and wanted to see further development - it would have been better for CDPR to continue in the vein - but hindsight is a special thing..
I too was saddened by the apparent lack of continuity from TW2 - or the lack of inclusion of events and significances from it. I've read the first 3 Witcher books and fact is I was never impressed or bothered by the Ciri story line- I loved that TW1 and 2 had nothing to do with this whatosever.
Honest truth is that going Open World was a massive gamble because as is often the case it came at the expense of game focus - we always had breadth but didn't always have depth
Remember in Witcher 1 and 2 the lengthy, sprawling conversation you could have with Zoltan or Dandelion about politics or ideology?
This was only possible because the games borders were delimited. By the time of TW3 we knew and loved the characters and wanted to see further development - it would have been better for CDPR to continue in the vein - but hindsight is a special thing..
Thanks for the summarization, it was both informative and made me smile (at the end I was just imagining Emhyr constantly ducking under flying axes, knives, fire balls, like he is not even bothered anymore)
My general opinion is without the Skellige Debacle and the sudden cutting of the purse strings, Nilfgaard probably would have won the war.
Even with Dijkstra or Radovid at the helm.
I do think Dijkstra was wise, though, that even if they annexed Kaedwin then Nilfgaard would be able to steamroll over them with Nilfgaard-ruled Temeria as their new Border.
Here's a couple of questions I was asked on my blog and my answers I think some people might be interested in.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
Which is the better ending? Redania or Nilfgaard?
I think it largely depends on the ruler. I think Radovid ruling the North would be a disaster because of the whole genocides and so on, even if the North would recover, because magic=science and he's just plunging them into a racist religious fundamentalist Dark Age. Even if the North being united under a single homegrown ruler by a scarily competent madman is nominally preferrable to conquest, Radovid's long-term policies will just make the North even more backward and superstitious and poor.
I think Dijkstra's modernization of the North and breaking down of national barriers would be the "best" ending even if it would be a nasty period for a time, it would mean that the new Redania wouldn't disintegrate into smaller states over the centuries but form a single united national identity. I also think it would guarantee rights for nonhumans, mages, and result in the North moving from 3rd world to 1st world like Nilfgaard.
I think Nilfgaard is somewhere in-between depending on circumstances. I think it'll be good for Temeria in the long run but everyone else having fought tooth and nail will be occupied and brutalized for a long time, assuming they can be assimilated at all. Empress Ciri would go a long way to mitigating a lot of these problems but there's only so much you can do with, "military occupation of nation you conquered because you wanted their stuff." Under Emhyr, I think he's a much better than Radovid, but Dijkstra at least speaks the language and is working for the active improvement of the living standards of the peasantry. His speech about economic reform is the kind of speech from a peasant by a peasant for the peasant and would be a major coup.
What did you think of Thaler and Roche's plan? Was it right?
I think Thaler and Roche probably were right, to be honest, and that Dijkstra's actions was an amazingly treacherous and possibly dumb thing to do. Empires are inherently unstable but from the perspective they were going from, getting them to the negotiating table was already a big win as those terms would have lead to a long-term economic boom for Temeria. It might even be a good thing in longer terms for the rest of the North as if Nilfgaard gave better terms for surrender, then the abuses of an occupied populace could be mitigated.
I understand Dijkstra's motivation to fight on, however, as well as his logic. The military-political situation had changed and victory for the North was possible--the problem is that it's not a viable long-term solution to drive them back as Nilfgaard's GDP would allow them to invade again and again until they won. The North has to unite into a single body if it's ever going to be able to be anything but Nilfgaard's punching bag.
I do think all three of them were stupid to keep Geralt out of the loop, however, because he's such a Wild Card. I imagine Geralt would be willing to side with a treaty to end the war or to assassinate Radovid as well as continue to prosecute it. Either solution would be fine but he'd react badly to being used as a pawn. Frankly, as difficult as it is to believe would step aside and let Dijkstra kill Roche, it's difficult to believe Geralt would be blindisded by Roche or Thaler either. You'd think, at some point, there'd have been an option for Geralt to ask, "So, if we kill Radovid, what happnens to the war effort?"
To which, they'd then tell him the truth, hash out their differences, and then Geralt would smack anyone who deviated from what they decided. The best solution would be the Dijkstra ending, IMHO, but a "realistic" scenario would have been Geralt forcing everyone to abide by their agreement.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
Which is the better ending? Redania or Nilfgaard?
I think it largely depends on the ruler. I think Radovid ruling the North would be a disaster because of the whole genocides and so on, even if the North would recover, because magic=science and he's just plunging them into a racist religious fundamentalist Dark Age. Even if the North being united under a single homegrown ruler by a scarily competent madman is nominally preferrable to conquest, Radovid's long-term policies will just make the North even more backward and superstitious and poor.
I think Dijkstra's modernization of the North and breaking down of national barriers would be the "best" ending even if it would be a nasty period for a time, it would mean that the new Redania wouldn't disintegrate into smaller states over the centuries but form a single united national identity. I also think it would guarantee rights for nonhumans, mages, and result in the North moving from 3rd world to 1st world like Nilfgaard.
I think Nilfgaard is somewhere in-between depending on circumstances. I think it'll be good for Temeria in the long run but everyone else having fought tooth and nail will be occupied and brutalized for a long time, assuming they can be assimilated at all. Empress Ciri would go a long way to mitigating a lot of these problems but there's only so much you can do with, "military occupation of nation you conquered because you wanted their stuff." Under Emhyr, I think he's a much better than Radovid, but Dijkstra at least speaks the language and is working for the active improvement of the living standards of the peasantry. His speech about economic reform is the kind of speech from a peasant by a peasant for the peasant and would be a major coup.
What did you think of Thaler and Roche's plan? Was it right?
I think Thaler and Roche probably were right, to be honest, and that Dijkstra's actions was an amazingly treacherous and possibly dumb thing to do. Empires are inherently unstable but from the perspective they were going from, getting them to the negotiating table was already a big win as those terms would have lead to a long-term economic boom for Temeria. It might even be a good thing in longer terms for the rest of the North as if Nilfgaard gave better terms for surrender, then the abuses of an occupied populace could be mitigated.
I understand Dijkstra's motivation to fight on, however, as well as his logic. The military-political situation had changed and victory for the North was possible--the problem is that it's not a viable long-term solution to drive them back as Nilfgaard's GDP would allow them to invade again and again until they won. The North has to unite into a single body if it's ever going to be able to be anything but Nilfgaard's punching bag.
I do think all three of them were stupid to keep Geralt out of the loop, however, because he's such a Wild Card. I imagine Geralt would be willing to side with a treaty to end the war or to assassinate Radovid as well as continue to prosecute it. Either solution would be fine but he'd react badly to being used as a pawn. Frankly, as difficult as it is to believe would step aside and let Dijkstra kill Roche, it's difficult to believe Geralt would be blindisded by Roche or Thaler either. You'd think, at some point, there'd have been an option for Geralt to ask, "So, if we kill Radovid, what happnens to the war effort?"
To which, they'd then tell him the truth, hash out their differences, and then Geralt would smack anyone who deviated from what they decided. The best solution would be the Dijkstra ending, IMHO, but a "realistic" scenario would have been Geralt forcing everyone to abide by their agreement.
Last edited: