The Politics of the Witcher 3 or "What we liked, didn't like, and would have done differently?"

[CTPhipps]

But is he a brilliant strategist

Yeah, pretty much, though not in the same way as Radovid. Dijkstra has absolute information access from all over the North as well as the South in Nilfgaard.

Which is just as valuable.

Either way, as you may remember from my essay, the "War" is actually almost over by the time Radovid is killed.

The majority of fighting which would decide whether or not Redania/Kaedwin/Temeria's partisans would fall has already been fought and the present status quo has been established with the Velen No Man's Land. Strategically, the war favors Nilfgaard in a protracted sense because Nilfgaard is wealthy beyond belief while Redania is comparatively poor. However, the addition of Novigrad's finances and treasury under Dijkstra plus its trading fleet means that the North can now fight on for an indefinite period of time thereafter. Likewise, the city effectively is conquered by Radovid without firing a shot in the Final Act due to the fact he's undermined the Rogues' Alliance by beggering Dijkstra and Whoreson's betrayal.

Whereas, Nilfgaard is running on a ticking clock due to the fact that Emhyr hasn't gotten the funds to continue prospecuting his war because they've been refused to him by the Guilds. Also, his political opposition is trying to kill him. Nilfgaard NEEDS a quick resolution to the war, which the Temerian treaty gives them, which will secure Emhyr's political place. If he doesn't get that, then he's assassinated.

With Dijkstra and Radovid assassinated, there is no Shadow Government to rise to the case of Redania that has any shadow of legitimacy. As such, the country will fall into chaos and Temeria will become part of Nilfgaard. That will free up all of the troops currently occupying the nation to join in an assault on Redania. The strategic reserves lost at Skellige won't matter. However, as long as Temeria is fighting the war, all of the troopers garrisoning Temeria are effectively out of the war.

So time is actually on Redania's side.

They just need to hunker down and hold out OR, as we see in the Dijkstra/Radovid ending, both men simply have to march on Vizima and take advantage of the lost Skellige troopers (who were, if not part of the Temerian invasion, part of Nilfgaard's strategic reserve) to drive them out of the capital.

Which results in Emhyr's assassination.

They had Radovid for as much of the war as they actually needed him.

 

[Gerald01]

Yeah, pretty much, though not in the same way as Radovid. Dijkstra has absolute information access from all over the North as well as the South in Nilfgaard.

I would disagree. Espionage and intel would play a secondary role vs Radovid's alleged strategical mastery once Nilfgaard reinforcements arrive, and the war's pace ramps up again.

Whereas, Nilfgaard is running on a ticking clock due to the fact that Emhyr hasn't gotten the funds to continue prospecuting his war because they've been refused to him by the Guilds.

Where is this from?

Strategically, the war favors Nilfgaard in a protracted sense because Nilfgaard is wealthy beyond

Yes, so what's that about the Guilds not funding the war no longer?

Also, his political opposition is trying to kill him. Nilfgaard NEEDS a quick resolution to the war, which the Temerian treaty gives them, which will secure Emhyr's political place. If he doesn't get that, then he's assassinated.

The game makes it look like all Emhyr needs is a victory. No mention about urgency if I'm not mistaken (let's also forget about the Ciri abdication botched subplot).
And the potential assassination happens only once the war is over.

With Dijkstra and Radovid assassinated, there is no Shadow Government to rise to the case of Redania that has any shadow of legitimacy. As such, the country will fall into chaos and Temeria will become part of Nilfgaard.

The unconvincing part is the whole shadow government ordeal, as Dijkstra in the game is presented as essentially a disgraced mobster. A B-list player.

he strategic reserves lost at Skellige won't matter.

I failed to notice this, it would have seemed losses in Skellige were minimal. The game does not depict any hostilities vs the Skelligers, only Wild Hunt.
Did Nilfgaard actually engage them? When?

As such, the country will fall into chaos and Temeria will become part of Nilfgaard. That will free up all of the troops currently occupying the nation to join in an assault on Redania.

What's the link between these two? Temeria is already occupied by Nilfgaard up to the Pontar, and the only determining factor should be Roche and the guerrilla laying down their arms if you don't kill him.

They just need to hunker down and hold out OR, as we see in the Dijkstra/Radovid ending, both men simply have to march on Vizima and take advantage of the lost Skellige troopers (who were, if not part of the Temerian invasion, part of Nilfgaard's strategic reserve) to drive them out of the capital.

Is this just your supposition?

They had Radovid for as much of the war as they actually needed him.

The game makes no sense in this regard. Radovid's actual war dealings have been failures. He engaged Nilfgaard with inferior manpower in open battle resulting in immense losses and apparently having to move to a purely defensive stance.
On top of that, the game acts as if the tip of balance rests on his, again, alleged brilliance for the next phase of the war, as a cause-effect thing.

 

[CTPhipps]

I would disagree. Espionage and intel would play a secondary role vs Radovid's alleged strategical mastery once Nilfgaard reinforcements arrive, and the war's pace ramps up again.

Where is this from?

The books. Specifically, Dijkstra's espionage skills are without parallel and include being aware of the Thanedd Coup before it happened despite the fact it was the most closely guarded secret in the North/Nilfgaard.

Yes, so what's that about the Guilds not funding the war no longer?

It's mentioned in the Vizima palace and later Geralt tells it to Dijkstra.

Go to 5:55.

The Trade Corporation is angry about the disruption of trade to the North and is no longer supporting the North.

The unconvincing part is the whole shadow government ordeal, as Dijkstra in the game is presented as essentially a disgraced mobster. A B-list player.

That, itself, is very strange since Dijkstra is basically a member of the President's cabinet turned mobster. However, returning Novigrad to the Redanian Empire would go a long way to settling his debts.

I failed to notice this, it would have seemed losses in Skellige were minimal. The game does not depict any hostilities vs the Skelligers, only Wild Hunt.
Did Nilfgaard actually engage them? When?

The losses at Skellige were severe enough that the Emperor chose no longer to invade Skellige but retreat given there's no further battles against them.

What's the link between these two? Temeria is already occupied by Nilfgaard up to the Pontar, and the only determining factor should be Roche and the guerrilla laying down their arms if you don't kill him.

The Empire is forced to occupy Temeria due to the presence of Temeria's resistance. If Roche and Thaler surrender, Emhyr can withdraw his troopers to invade Redania (which he does in their victory slides).

This is mentioned in the "Nilfgaard Wins" ending.

11:49

Emhyr can shift his troopers from Temeria to other lands once they've surrendered and their armies are now HIS armies.

The game makes no sense in this regard. Radovid's actual war dealings have been failures. He engaged Nilfgaard with inferior manpower in open battle resulting in immense losses and apparently having to move to a purely defensive stance.
On top of that, the game acts as if the tip of balance rests on his, again, alleged brilliance for the next phase of the war, as a cause-effect thing.

Novigrad is mentioned repeatedly as the key decisive factor in the war's balance. Coin is what decides the battle, not men in this case.

As for Radovid's strategy, a defensive strategy is the best option to pursue as all he has to do is wear down the Nilfgaard War Machine until it chooses to withdraw as we've seen in previous invasions. Temeria's military forces are devastated in a three-day battle mentioned by Roche as being led by John Natalis but this wasn't Radovid, who has consolidated his position in Northern Temeria and has managed to secure Oxenfurt in Temeria.

Which means that he's actually in an offensive position given Northern Temeria is under his control. Velen is a No Man's Land because we see the remains of continuous engagements between both the Redanians as well as the Nilfgaard troopers. One side-quest actually involves burning the mass-graves which a recent engagement created.

We also see Nilfgaard's control isn't exactly secure over Temeria either as the garrison in the South of Velen was erected not-recently (during the Winter, presuambly) while the battle in White Orchard is a recently fought one. In short, Temeria is in open-rebellion and they're being struck at by partisans (as we see in White Orchard and with Roche's resistance)

Radovid's Strategy.

The strategy Radovid seems to be pursuing is that he's attempting to acquire Novigrad via subterfuge while keeping the Nilfgaard from consolidating their position in Temeria using the partisans to formulate rebellion while striking at Nilfgaard's forces. He is continually engaging them in Velen's No Man's Lands to prevent them from consolidating their position and Geralt SAYS to the Bloody Baron, "The Nilfgaard Garrison in Velen is weak."

Nilfgaard hasn't yet gotten enough reinforcements to push to Novigrad, secure it, and then into greater Redania due to being unable to keep control over Temeria.

Then, for whatever reason, Emhyr opens up a second front in the war with Skellige only for his invasion fleet to retreat with its tail between its legs after engaging the Wild Hunt.

 

[Gerald01]

The books. Specifically, Dijkstra's espionage skills are without parallel and include being aware of the Thanedd Coup before it happened despite the fact it was the most closely guarded secret in the North/Nilfgaard.

I know, I was commenting on it. The question about where referred to the financial issues.
Speaking of, the actual dialogue doesn't seem to make it seem like a factor so groundbreaking as it seemed.

The losses at Skellige were severe enough that the Emperor chose no longer to invade Skellige but retreat given there's no further battles against them.

Unless I'm mistaken this is purely an assumption on your part. Battles could be omissions (like for tons of other stuff post end) and retreat could be determined by other factors.
The actual fighting does not show major losses.

The Empire is forced to occupy Temeria due to the presence of Temeria's resistance. If Roche and Thaler surrender, Emhyr can withdraw his troopers to invade Redania (which he does in their victory slides).

That was I was saying. But you implied a correlation between Redania's internal situation and Roche's surrender.

Novigrad is mentioned repeatedly as the key decisive factor in the war's balance. Coin is what decides the battle, not men in this case.

ANd that's why the Radovid's genius angle is poorly thought out and odd. It's one or the other. Either his contribution is basically over or he's still key, on a purely strategical basis, for victory.

 

[whiplash27]

The things about the political stuff that bothered me was that it felt like there was no choice as to who you should pick. Nilfgaard is the default choice for pretty much anyone. Radovid is crazy and choosing Dijkstra requires you to kill your friends. Choosing Nilfgaard is pretty much the best choice every time. If you care for Temeria, then Nilfgaard seems to give them a pretty good result as well.

I didn't like how Dijkstra comes out of nowhere with his plan and the requirement is that you kill Roche. I would have rather the plan with Dijkstra just be a longer quest line. The player could end it there and Nilfgaard wins (Dijkstra dies) or the player can take Dijkstra's path where he wins, but without the deaths of your friends. In the end, however, there would be some sort of negative impact of Dijkstra's rule.

In fact, I would have rather siding with Nilfgaard somehow seem like the best choice at the time, but lead to the deaths of your friends in some other capacity. It would have been a better curve ball. Take the easy road where Temeria is supposed to become the protectorate, refuse Dijkstra and then as a result all of your Temerian friends end up dying.

Then with Radovid, he should have some sort of positive associated with him. Not sure exactly what, but the crazy Radovid's reign of terror was just too much for a series that never truly has a full on bad guy.

 

[CTPhipps]

The things about the political stuff that bothered me was that it felt like there was no choice as to who you should pick. Nilfgaard is the default choice for pretty much anyone. Radovid is crazy and choosing Dijkstra requires you to kill your friends. Choosing Nilfgaard is pretty much the best choice every time. If you care for Temeria, then Nilfgaard seems to give them a pretty good result as well.

This is an assumption I find to be curious and doesn't at all reflect what I've encountered from a lot of people I've met online. The "Nilfgaard wins" option is portrayed as unusually nice but the simple fact is most bookreaders have a signifciantly less pleasant view of the country. Likewise, you have to sacrifice Aedirn (Saskia) to the Nilfgaard plus Redania plus Kaedwin plus Lyria to the Nilfgaard with no protections. It's a serious omission as while Temeria gets its freedom, everyone else gets presumably burned and enslaved.

I didn't like how Dijkstra comes out of nowhere with his plan and the requirement is that you kill Roche. I would have rather the plan with Dijkstra just be a longer quest line. The player could end it there and Nilfgaard wins (Dijkstra dies) or the player can take Dijkstra's path where he wins, but without the deaths of your friends. In the end, however, there would be some sort of negative impact of Dijkstra's rule.

Yeah, it's an artificial choice framed in a manner designed to get you to side with Roche despite the fact most players would find the idea of selling the North to Nilfgaard via Roche's treaty to be monstrous.

In fact, I would have rather siding with Nilfgaard somehow seem like the best choice at the time, but lead to the deaths of your friends in some other capacity. It would have been a better curve ball. Take the easy road where Temeria is supposed to become the protectorate, refuse Dijkstra and then as a result all of your Temerian friends end up dying.

I've argued, elsewhere, ROCHE should attack DIJKSTRA in order to prevent him from scuttlling the surrender agreement.

Then with Radovid, he should have some sort of positive associated with him. Not sure exactly what, but the crazy Radovid's reign of terror was just too much for a series that never truly has a full on bad guy.

Making Radovid Hitler was another cheap way of making Nilfgaard look better.

 

[Trireme]

We needed more Voorhis anyway. Grew to like that guy even despite his completely suggestive, 'An Empress needs an Emperor' comment right to Geralt's face.

I'm really curious to see the Toussaint DLC and whether Voorhis shows up there. Toussaint is an imperial vassal state, and in the books Geralt stumbles upon a conspiracy there to overthrow the emperor. If history repeats itself, we may have a whole new ending available depending on how the conspiracy turns out! I don't know if Voorhis would be a loyalist or a conspirator- maybe Geralt has to help him decide?

 

[CTPhipps]

I know, I was commenting on it. The question about where referred to the financial issues.
Speaking of, the actual dialogue doesn't seem to make it seem like a factor so groundbreaking as it seemed.

Well, it's enough to have Dijkstra say that Emhyr's reign is going to be coming to a violent swift end soon. That's incredibly finale. However, I don't have a video of the part where they talk about the Guilds and the need for coin.

It's there, though, in the Vizima palace.

Unless I'm mistaken this is purely an assumption on your part. Battles could be omissions (like for tons of other stuff post end) and retreat could be determined by other factors.
The actual fighting does not show major losses.

The actual battle shows that the Nilfgaardian forces engage the Wild Hunt and proceed to do battle with them before abandoning their invasion of Skellige. If nothing else, this is a major derailing of their planned invasion and can only be viewed as a massive defeat for the war effort. Major losses? We don't know their losses figures but we do know they never engaged Skellige's forces let alone took the islands.

That was I was saying. But you implied a correlation between Redania's internal situation and Roche's surrender.

Roche's Surrender is motivated by personal disgust for Radovid and the fact he suspects (correctly) Radovid will occupy Temeria and add it to his territories.

ANd that's why the Radovid's genius angle is poorly thought out and odd. It's one or the other. Either his contribution is basically over or he's still key, on a purely strategical basis, for victory.

I imagine Radovid's genius was key but largely over. Without him, though, Redania disintegrates and Emhyr is able to invade with the forces previously occupying Temeria.

 

[whiplash27]

People who have only played the games probably have the strongest attachment to Temeria. TW1 takes place in Temeria. Act I of TW2 takes place in Temeria and the story kind of revolves around that country in a sense if you take Roche's path. Also, TW3 neglects the outcome of what happens to the rest of the North. Temeria is the only one mentioned. The game did seem to kind of white wash Nilfgaard. In TW2, you kind of get the feeling of Nilfgaard being this evil empire. In TW3, they didn't seem so bad, especially in comparison to Radovid.

The thing is that when we play through the games, for the most part it's established that Geralt hates politics and only gets involved when he has to. At the same rate, he'd do just about anything for those he cares about. So the idea of siding with Dijkstra for a stronger North in exchange for his friends' lives would be ludicrous.

 

[Gerald01]

@Willowhugger Eh..
Whatever happens to the massive reinforcements mentioned in Vizima during your first visit anyway? Never mentioned again.

 

[Phinnway]

I just want to point out the poltical situation in The Witcher 3 is almost identical to the set up in Witcher 2.

Novigrad/Pontar Valley = a wealthy morself being fought over that will tip the balance of power
Emhyr/Stennis = a monarch who needs to win a war to stay in power
Radovid/Hensalt = a tyrant who is a necesary evil

Emhyr is bankrupt and needs to win the war quickly.

I don't think it's that he is bankrupt. I think it's more that he is losing the ruling class's support for the war. Which means there will be rebellion if he doesn't end it quickly. Remember, in the medieval period the power of the monarch was checked by the power of his vassals. If he ticked them off too much they would rebel.

If you do the ending where Emhyr loses it talks about how he needed to project strength to remain in power, and at the slightest sign of weakness that perception collapsed.



btw, for some reason I never got the chance to assassinate Radovid even though I did the conspiracy quest. I'm so f'ing ticked!!

 

[CTPhipps]

People who have only played the games probably have the strongest attachment to Temeria. TW1 takes place in Temeria. Act I of TW2 takes place in Temeria and the story kind of revolves around that country in a sense if you take Roche's path. Also, TW3 neglects the outcome of what happens to the rest of the North. Temeria is the only one mentioned. The game did seem to kind of white wash Nilfgaard. In TW2, you kind of get the feeling of Nilfgaard being this evil empire. In TW3, they didn't seem so bad, especially in comparison to Radovid.

The thing is that when we play through the games, for the most part it's established that Geralt hates politics and only gets involved when he has to. At the same rate, he'd do just about anything for those he cares about. So the idea of siding with Dijkstra for a stronger North in exchange for his friends' lives would be ludicrous.

There's a number of reasons to side with Dijkstra which were obvious to me on my playthrough.

1. Emhyr is a threat to Ciri in a Non-Empress playthrough. If he conquers the North then there's nowhere Ciri can hide on this world. She'll have to flee to other dimensions again.

2. Geralt was manipulated by Roche and Thaler and Dijkstra to serve as their assassin, not telling him about the treaty. It's an immense personal betrayal and reduces him to a common assassin--one of the things Geralt despises most (why he hates the Cat School).

3. Geralt may not have a sentimental attachment to the North but he is aware that thousands of people are likely to die in the Nilfgaard conquest of the North which might not normally do so.

4. Geralt's personality might have changed due to the events of Witcher 1 and Witcher 2 w/ regard to politics.

5. Geralt may feel a personal affection for Dijkstra if they bonded over the latter's attempts to save the mages as well as Dijkstra not going after Dandelion once he finds out that he's responsible for the thefts.

6. Geralt might think Roche and Ves can fight their way out without his help and abandoning them isn't a death sentence. "This is your mess, you fix it."

In the end, though, I imagine any choice between Dijkstra will boil down to two factors.

"Does Geralt want Emhyr anywhere near Ciri and can he stop him if Emhyr wins the war?"

"Does Geralt still consider Roche a friend after this act of manipulation? Does he consider Dijkstra one? Does he believe either are?"

 

[whiplash27]

I just want to point out the poltical situation in The Witcher 3 is almost identical to the set up in Witcher 2.

Novigrad/Pontar Valley = a wealthy morself being fought over that will tip the balance of power
Emhyr/Stennis = a monarch who needs to win a war to stay in power
Radovid/Hensalt = a tyrant who is a necesary evil

The thing is when it came down to it, I felt like killing off Henselt is a worse choice than killing off Radovid. I was hoping that killing Dethmold would have kind of made Henselt a more likable character in TW3, instead the devs killed him off. It would have been interesting to have two northern kings in the foreground of the political aspect of the game.

 

[CTPhipps]

The thing is when it came down to it, I felt like killing off Henselt is a worse choice than killing off Radovid. I was hoping that killing Dethmold would have kind of made Henselt a more likable character in TW3, instead the devs killed him off. It would have been interesting to have two northern kings in the foreground of the political aspect of the game.

It's the problem with the Shrodinger's Cat thing. Developers always seem to want to default to killing characters who MIGHT be dead, which is stupid because they often put VERY IMPORTANT characters up for the chopping block.

There's no reason, for example, why Henselt and Radovid can't just be allies during the war.

---------- Updated at 03:00 AM ----------

@Willowhugger Eh..
Whatever happens to the massive reinforcements mentioned in Vizima during your first visit anyway? Never mentioned again.

I wonder if THEY'RE the force which attacks Skellige.

 

[whiplash27]

There's a number of reasons to side with Dijkstra which were obvious to me on my playthrough.

1. Emhyr is a threat to Ciri in a Non-Empress playthrough. If he conquers the North then there's nowhere Ciri can hide on this world. She'll have to flee to other dimensions again.

Possibly, he could also think that Ciri died saving the world and not bother looking for her anymore. Geralt says he's not sure whether he bought it. Ciri doesn't seem to care. The epilogue seems to make it out like Ciri is doing just fine even in a world controlled by Nilfgaard.

2. Geralt was manipulated by Roche and Thaler and Dijkstra to serve as their assassin, not telling him about the treaty. It's an immense personal betrayal and reduces him to a common assassin--one of the things Geralt despises most (why he hates the Cat School).

As you said Dijkstra used Geralt as well. Either way, none of them really filled Geralt in on their plans. I saw Geralt going in on it as a favor to Roche after he helped out at KM.

3. Geralt may not have a sentimental attachment to the North but he is aware that thousands of people are likely to die in the Nilfgaard conquest of the North which might not normally do so.

That's fine, but the game doesn't make it abundantly clear exactly how bad Nilfgaardian rule would be for the northern people.

4. Geralt's personality might have changed due to the events of Witcher 1 and Witcher 2 w/ regard to politics.

Maybe, but then again, you have people arguing that Geralt can't love anyone else but Yennefer.

5. Geralt may feel a personal affection for Dijkstra if they bonded over the latter's attempts to save the mages as well as Dijkstra not going after Dandelion once he finds out that he's responsible for the thefts.

Maybe, but he still doesn't seem to be all that fond of him even in later conversations.

6. Geralt might think Roche and Ves can fight their way out without his help and abandoning them isn't a death sentence. "This is your mess, you fix it."

OK, but Dijkstra still wants Roche dead. Why help a man who wants your friend dead? Roche would have to go on the run and leave the North if Dijkstra gets into power.

 

[fishful]

@Willowhugger Eh..
Whatever happens to the massive reinforcements mentioned in Vizima during your first visit anyway? Never mentioned again.

Maybe the reinforcements arriving in Velen coincide with Radovid getting Novigrad's support?

In regards to the Skellige invasion doesn't Avallac'h claim that the emperor faked the attack so their fleet could block the Wild Hunt's escape? Of all the people involved in the last battle (which is really goddamn confusing btw) the only ones without a clue of what's going on are the skelliger's themselves. In any case I doubt the Emperor would commit enough troops to Skellige that their loss would mean forfeiting the North. He didn't agree send troops to Kaer Morhen either.

 

[CTPhipps]

Possibly, he could also think that Ciri died saving the world and not bother looking for her anymore. Geralt says he's not sure whether she bought it. Ciri doesn't seem to care.

I believe the, "Geralt will screw over the ENTIRE FUCKING NORTH (or at least Temeria) to protect his daughter" is the most likely and reasonable justification from what we know of Geralt as a character. if he thinks that Roche is a guy he has to leave behind to make sure that Ciri is even slightly safer, he may do it.
Accent on may.

If so, that's a rather staggering display of fatherly love bordering on insanity. Also, extreme paranoia about Emhyr's attachment. I'd find the possibility more believable, too, if the game mentioned Emhyr's despicable intentions to his daughter which Geralt knows of (and he may worry about resuming).

That's fine, but the game doesn't make it abundantly clear exactly how bad Nilfgaardian rule would be for the northern people.

Yeah, in-game, the only Nilfgaardian atrocities we witness are relatively mild compared to Radovid.

* A destroyed village
* A scourging of a man who is sort of guilty
* Putting the Bloody Baron's rapists and murderers in charge of Crow's Peak
* Executing POWs
* A hearsay conversation about the rape and murder of a Temple of Melitele

Versus

RADOVID IS GOING TO KILL ALL THE MAGES AND THE NONHUMANS! ALL OF THEM!

." OK, but Dijkstra still wants Roche dead. Why help a man who wants your friend dead? Roche would have to go on the run and leave the North if Dijkstra gets into power.

Well the option is, "Help Roche" or "walk away."

Walking away as an option is helping neither side but it seems like Geralt does that in-game because he doesn't want to get involved, not because of any sense of betrayal.

It's a badly written scene, I think, even if I understand the political angles behind it.

It's not even really explained why Dijkstra wants Roche and thaler dead. You just have to assume it's because they're intending on surrender.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

My problem is with three VERY SIMPLISTIC endings. Ciri will make Nilfgaard good, Radovid is a s.o.b, and Dijkstra is a savior of the North but we have to kill our friends to achieve it. With Dijkstra it may be the point, but it is a terrible idea from story-telling perspective because we have no idea how things will turn out. Witch-hunters are stupid homicidal morons, and nobody gives a shit about Novigrad loosing its free city status. Dijkstra by magic takes over Radovid, and everyone is Ok with a former spy/crime lord becoming a king. WTF???

I would prefer to make things more complicated. The status of Novigrad should be of major concern, both to the authorities of Novigrad, and to citizens. Their agreement with Radovid to turn a city into a trap for the mages, and to persecute non-humans is not just a result of some simplistic religious zeal, and what-not, but a condition of remaining a free city. So they work with Radovid because they have to, and not just because they want to.

1. If Radovid stays alive, he does not fulfill his promise. Novigrad becomes a Redanian city. But this ending should not be as glaringly bad. Eventually the mages and non-humans are exterminated/ forced to leave/or restricted to non-human lands. Radovid becomes the unquestionable authority. He unifies now a homogenous nation with a strong national identity, and with a popular support, he prepares to wage the war in order to return former Northern lands, starting with Cintra. Without the mages scientific research is unrestricted. Dynamite is rediscovered, and used in warfare. For a time the North is victorious. Later Nilfgaard and the Northern Empire start the arms race, while fighting border wars. The continent moves fast toward modernity, with all its amazing wonders like firearms, trench warfare, and pan-continental conflicts.

2. Dijkstra persuades authorities in Novigrad that Radovid will not keep his promise. The dynamic of assassination is different, Roche, Ves and Dijkstra do not need to die. It would be nice if they actually re-write the whole thing. The idea with Temerian independence is good, though. Under certain conditions Dijkstra gets full support of Novigrad, that includes its navy and city guards. His takeover of Redania makes sense. Novigrad remains a free city, and the Cult of the Eternal Fire remains independent and a very strong force in the Northern society. They may not have been happy with persecutions on Radovid's scale, but they are not going to stop either. So even though Dijkstra stops persecutions, the problem is not resolved. The cult continues to instigate pogroms, while mages is Kovir again remain unchecked. The Lodge is revived. In short, the North did not change too much. Dijkstra has enough on his plate with constant political maneuvering and saving a crumbling economy, so he has neither desire nor resources to challenge Nilfgaard. Nilfgaard patiently waits and plans a new invasion.

3. Nilfgaard wins. Kovir and Poviss submit, and become the client kingdoms. Temeria is a protectorate. Novigrad looses its free city status, and the Cult of the Eternal Fire looses its power and influence. Mages are not persecuted, but heavily regulated. Non-humans get the same rights as humans, but for now, people of the North, as residents of newly-conquered territories, are treated as second-class citizens. The economy is restored, and Nilfgaard proclaims religious tolerance. But at the same time cultural imperialism leads to "nilfgaardization" of the Northern territories, and gradual disappearance of spoken language, local customs and religions. The North looses its unique cultural identity, though in Temeria, Kovir and Povis this process is slower, and the emerging culture is an amalgam. In short, a normal process.

Well, may be not exactly like this, but definitely something more sophisticated than what we have now.

 

[CTPhipps]

Maybe the reinforcements arriving in Velen coincide with Radovid getting Novigrad's support?

In regards to the Skellige invasion doesn't Avallac'h claim that the emperor faked the attack so their fleet could block the Wild Hunt's escape? Of all the people involved in the last battle (which is really goddamn confusing btw) the only ones without a clue of what's going on are the skelliger's themselves. In any case I doubt the Emperor would commit enough troops to Skellige that their loss would mean forfeiting the North. He didn't agree send troops to Kaer Morhen either.

Weird, because that's not what Yennefer says.

At the battle, Yennefer says, "The Emperor has agreed to halt his Skellige campaign until the Wild Hunt is dealt with."

So he knows about the Wild Hunt but he was very much intending to invade until Yennefer told him what's what.

From what we know of Emperor Emhyr is that he wouldn't endanger his present position by diverting troopers from Temeria's garrisoning to Skellige. However, those troopers, no matter what, represent troopers from Nilfgaard's strategic reserve. The attack on Skellige, if nothing else, means that potential reinforcements or forces which could be used to wage the war against Redania are diverted to a new theater of war with questionable benefit from any angle given Skellige's accidental neutrality.

 

[fishful]

Had to rewatch the tent scene and indeed, Avallac'h doesn't say anything of the sort, only that the Emperor's committed to the cause.

It is however kinda of a bad move to start a campaign in Skellige right after Radovid managed to get support from Novigrad. Maybe Emhyr was confident the assassination plot would succeed?