Nilfgaard is Actually Not that Bad

[MarcAuron]

Man, I'll read the books once more. You make me remember how great story is!!! My devotion to Ciri made forgoten, not the essence, but the details like these. Thank you again. Sad mistake of mine! I'd have like to say all that you posted here by myself

/>

Yes,Ciri is interesting, I have however a obsession with small things in books and with the Wild Hunt myth, so the details somehow stick, even if I havent read the books entirely in very long time, and downloaded the fan transltions to be able to converse in English here.

Otherwise I would be completely lost until I translate in to English.

 

[MarcAuron]

I am sure they are good. But continent scale genocide is quite another matter.

Agree, don't know what will happen, but continent scale slavery is viable, who knows how he will react in front of the imminent treat , somehow I have a English brain fart now.

 

[wichat]

In the books the emperor was fairly concerned about the elven prophecy about the world freezing over, which was also a big theme in TW1, and CDPR gave an evasive answer when asked if that prophecy would play into TW3. Perhaps the emperor is acting based upon what he thinks he needs to do to stop the elven prophecy, or perhaps he knows about the Wild Hunt and is planning to do something to fight them which requires him being in control of the areas that they travel through, or something like that. I'll be very surprised if his motive comes down to simple conquest for power's sake because I feel like the games are setting it up to be something much more interesting.

I agree. Emhyr hate magic because of his curse and the fate of his father, but doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it. Emhyr's life is plenty of magical events, and he believes that his fate is linked to the Prophecy. Another Spakowski's character full of strange paradoxes. As all of them.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Agree, don't know what will happen, but continent scale slavery is viable

Even that is impossible and not economically sound.

There is certainly no real life example of it, and magic is not going to make it viable economically and logistically.

 

[username_2093396]

Even that is impossible and not economically sound.

There is certainly no real life example of it, and magic is not going to make it viable economically and logistically.

This is already what, the third large war that Nilfgaard has started? I don't think they plan to settle everything with only one war.

Assuming conquest is the goal, they'll probably focus on the areas closest to their border. If they set up the No Man's Land a bit further north than the actual border, then they can probably focus on killing, enslaving, and subduing the population in between their territory and the No Man's Land while the army blocks the northern kingdoms from interfering.

Then after the war is over they will have expanded a bit, likely leaving the north much weaker economically and in terms of military strength, and in a few years after the No Man's Land comes back to life they can have another war and expand even further north.

 

[MarcAuron]

Even that is impossible and not economically sound.

There is certainly no real life example of it, and magic is not going to make it viable economically and logistically.

OK then. But once Vicovaro was independent, Ebbing was independent and was annexed , some will betray like Ervyl of Vergen did, and possibly do everything to keep their crown, the surface of slavery will probably be smaller than we are assuming.
Who knows maybe the last one standing will be Radovid, and if going further if surrounded he is probably done anyway. Who knows maybe the player will have some say in this, depending of what we did in Witcher2.
I don't understand the decision to start the Third Nilfgaard war annyway, there are more important things now.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

This is already what, the third large war that Nilfgaard has started? I don't think they plan to settle everything with only one war.

Yea I think their objective is to reach the pontar and use it as a natural border. Play diplomatic divide and conquer to break alliances in what's left of the North, while they secure their substantial gains.

Enslaving a part of the population, and deporting parts of it from key strategic areas, sound like a possibility. But complete enslavement and deportation sounds silly.

 

[username_2093396]

Yea I think their objective is to reach the pontar and use it as a natural border. Play diplomatic divide and conquer to break alliances in what's left of the North, while their secure their substantial gains.

Enslaving a part of the population, and deporting parts of it from key strategic areas, sound like a possibility. But complete enslavement and deportation sounds silly.

I don't know about 100% death and enslavement, but if they do enough damage to the population then whoever remains will be too afraid to object to Nilfgaardians moving in and taking over the government and all important infrastructure. The people who lived in that land originally will become second-class citizens even if not labeled as slaves.

 

[Blothulfur]

Good, bad, not really my Geralt's problem. Just stay out of the way of what he wants and don't make him act and there'll be no problems, the feudal monarchs of the north can contest against the imperial tyrants of the south until the ice sheets cover both.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I don't know about 100% death and enslavement, but if they do enough damage to the population then whoever remains will be too afraid to object to Nilfgaardians moving in and taking over the government and all important infrastructure. The people who lived in that land originally will become second-class citizens even if not labeled as slaves.

Oh yea I know, I don't think Nilfgaard will be relatively benign in its conquest. Something which is apparently representative of the Nilfgaardian system in general, and is one of the biggest reasons why I don't find them that appealing.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

I don't understand the decision to start the Third Nilfgaard war anyway, there are more important things now.

Like what? It was a good time to start a new war. Northern coalition disintegrated, the northern kings fight each other, have a lot of problems with non-humans, and the Lodge just lit a fire under everyone's arses with assassination of Demovend. Plus the mages want to get organized again. If Nilfgaard allows it, or at least does not strike right away, the mages will become too strong, and the situation will be like during the first war. In this case all work that went into organization of Thanedd coup will be a complete and utter waste. Nobody wants the second Sodden you know. So I would say the mages forced Emhyr's hand, and he reacted. He couldn't allow northern mages to get organized and get too powerful, and he can't afford to loose another war - it will be a real possibility to loose the throne, because no one would be left to support a failure of an emperor.

 

[username_2093396]

Good, bad, not really my Geralt's problem. Just stay out of the way of what he wants and don't make him act and there'll be no problems, the feudal monarchs of the north can contest against the imperial tyrants of the south until the ice sheets cover both.

True, if Geralt is deciding what to do based on personal reasons (as he usually does), and if Ciri is in this game (as I am pretty sure she will be) then I cannot imagine Ciri ever agreeing with supporting the emperor, and probably not any of the northern kings either. And Geralt would care more about keeping Ciri safe and finding Yennefer as opposed to which tyrant is in power.

I don't think it'll come down to Geralt making a conscious decision to support this or that ruler. Rather I think it will be more like TW2 where Geralt has to make decisions about specific characters (kill or spare Aryan? Sile? etc.) and then that ends up having an impact on the politics due to the actions of those other characters.

 

[CostinRaz]

Or Geralt will end up helping a someone so he get's help in return.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

I don't think it'll come down to Geralt making a conscious decision to support this or that ruler. Rather I think it will be more like TW2 where Geralt has to make decisions about specific characters (kill or spare Aryan? Sile? etc.) and then that ends up having an impact on the politics due to the actions of those other characters.

Yes, it is what I am hoping for. Geralt would never support a conquest itself, and his decisions will be based on his own (or his friends and family) benefits. But from a meta-gaming perspective it should be a way to come to an agreeable political end state, agreeable for a player, not Geralt. In TW2 there is an obvious path through the game outcome of which is beneficial for Nilfgaard, a path most beneficial for the North, and everything in between. I just want the same thing in TW3, that's all.

 

[MarcAuron]

Like what? It was a good time to start a new war. Northern coalition disintegrated, the northern kings fight each other, have a lot of problems with non-humans, and the Lodge just lit a fire under everyone's arses with assassination of Demovend. Plus the mages want to get organized again. If Nilfgaard allows it, or at least does not strike right away, the mages will become too strong, and the situation will be like during the first war. In this case all work that went into organization of Thanedd coup will be a complete and utter waste. Nobody wants the second Sodden you know. So I would say the mages forced Emhyr's hand, and he reacted. He couldn't allow northern mages to get organized and get too powerful, and he can't afford to loose another war - it will be a real possibility to loose the throne, because no one would be left to support a failure of an emperor.

From Emhyr perspective you are right, I was talking about the Wild hunt. The idea that the plot may be maybe to short and meaningless on personal levels, because the game has many things to explain. The lodge plots and the Wild Hunt plot if done well are large enough for a entire game.

 

[Lanaya]

Yes, it is what I am hoping for. Geralt would never support a conquest itself, and his decisions will be based on his own (or his friends and family) benefits. But from a meta-gaming perspective it should be a way to come to an agreeable political end state, agreeable for a player, not Geralt. In TW2 there is an obvious path through the game outcome of which is beneficial for Nilfgaard, a path most beneficial for the North, and everything in between. I just want the same thing in TW3, that's all.

Yeah, exactly. Such option should be in TW3. In TW2 we didnt really help the scoiattel or Temeria, we didnt even help roche. We just went on the same direction. I think there will be such grand moment in TW3 as well. I mean it was in TW1 and TW2, so it is completely expected to be in TW3.

 

[Haudrauff]

Well, all sides commit a lot of atrocities during the war. The question is what system of government and what society/culture is better. I believe the imperial way of life is better. Are the Northern kings better than Emhyr? No. If we compare only the rulers, Emhyr wins hands down. So for me it is kind of obvious who to support. As long as CDPR gives us an option to support Nilfgaard (as a meta-game, from player perspective), and one of the end states is when the Empire wins the war and keeps all territories between Yaruga and Pontar, I will be happy.

So which kind of government/society etc... is better? NONE...
The best way is given by the druides especially Wclose-to-the-nature/with-the-nature not against it" SOCIETY...

 

[sfinx]

Now I am reading Baptism of fire and I didn't have to go far for example of Nilgaards acts. I am not saying anything about another sides, but when one state acted like this, nothing can justify that..

The prisoners were rounded up and surrounded by a ring of horsemen. At the command knight who wore a helmet with black plumes, the riders began to mow down and stab at helpless. Those who fell were trampled by the horses. The circle was closing. cries, which carried up to the cliff, no longer resembled voices of humans.

I don't care what noble goal has Emhyr in mind, but he has to know, what is always brought along with his wars, so death is not enough for him.