@Inariele, I agree that they could have given a passing mention but would that really satisfy people? I think Skirlasvoud has it right in that Saskia and Iorveth are probably being saved for the DLC's.
@Skirlasvoud, you make some fine points. They could and might have mattered if that was the route they picked. On the other hand these choices could have been handled in the same manner as Henselt. Our choice of letting Roche kill him or not didn't matter in the end. It might have some impact in that if Roche kills him Radovid has a super easy time taking it over, vs. fighting and killing Henselt on the battlefield. But in that sense it would matter as to how strong Radovid is. How many troops did he lose etc. And for the game would that matter.
After all the game is really about Geralt and his story. The rest is a backdrop.
And the same goes for Stennis. Let's quickly review how it might matter if Stennis lives. If he does that means he fights Nilfgaard. But in W2 it was said many times that he was weak. He had no real army. In my mind a dragon would cause more damage and death to Nilfgaard then Stennis and a few soldiers ever could.
And I would love to actually debate the effectiveness of rebels, militia and partisans during WW2 (they in reality had a very small impact) but that is for another time and place. May I suggest Paradox forums for Hearts of Iron as this has been discussed there in great detail.
My point is this. Our W2 choices had an impact. The question is how severe and lasting is that impact. In W2 the witch hunts are minor in half the choices but does that mean Radovid doesn't go ahead full force after W2? I think the error and mistake that we make is our choices are somehow binding on the other powers that be and that they can't change their minds or pick different routes.
I ahven't finished the game yet but I was under the impression that Anais wasn't with Radovid and that Adda was still dead from W1.
@Skirlasvoud, you make some fine points. They could and might have mattered if that was the route they picked. On the other hand these choices could have been handled in the same manner as Henselt. Our choice of letting Roche kill him or not didn't matter in the end. It might have some impact in that if Roche kills him Radovid has a super easy time taking it over, vs. fighting and killing Henselt on the battlefield. But in that sense it would matter as to how strong Radovid is. How many troops did he lose etc. And for the game would that matter.
After all the game is really about Geralt and his story. The rest is a backdrop.
And the same goes for Stennis. Let's quickly review how it might matter if Stennis lives. If he does that means he fights Nilfgaard. But in W2 it was said many times that he was weak. He had no real army. In my mind a dragon would cause more damage and death to Nilfgaard then Stennis and a few soldiers ever could.
And I would love to actually debate the effectiveness of rebels, militia and partisans during WW2 (they in reality had a very small impact) but that is for another time and place. May I suggest Paradox forums for Hearts of Iron as this has been discussed there in great detail.
My point is this. Our W2 choices had an impact. The question is how severe and lasting is that impact. In W2 the witch hunts are minor in half the choices but does that mean Radovid doesn't go ahead full force after W2? I think the error and mistake that we make is our choices are somehow binding on the other powers that be and that they can't change their minds or pick different routes.
I ahven't finished the game yet but I was under the impression that Anais wasn't with Radovid and that Adda was still dead from W1.