The Politics of the Witcher 3 or "What we liked, didn't like, and would have done differently?"
Exactly what the title says.
Nilfgaard is invading
Radovid is his last remaining opponent, having conquered Kaedwin
Roche is the head of the Temerian resistance
Emhyr is bankrupt and needs to win the war quickly
Emhyr also wants to abdicate and crown his daughter
Radovid can be assassinated and replaced by Dijkstra who turns the North, essentially, into Niflgaardania or Roche who achieves a sweet deal with Nilfgaard.
The politics are very very simple compared to AOK2.
But I don't think they're BAD per se.
They're just almost incidental to the larger story.
What would have changed? Kept the same? Re-emphasized? What sort of other options would you have done?
That sort of thing.
In general, the forum opinion has been that Henselt was wasted in carry over games, Radovid's insanity was ill-handled, and there's some controversy over the final decision of Reasons of State.
So let's try and bring something new to those subjects if they get repeated.
Exactly what the title says.
Nilfgaard is invading
Radovid is his last remaining opponent, having conquered Kaedwin
Roche is the head of the Temerian resistance
Emhyr is bankrupt and needs to win the war quickly
Emhyr also wants to abdicate and crown his daughter
Radovid can be assassinated and replaced by Dijkstra who turns the North, essentially, into Niflgaardania or Roche who achieves a sweet deal with Nilfgaard.
The politics are very very simple compared to AOK2.
But I don't think they're BAD per se.
They're just almost incidental to the larger story.
What would have changed? Kept the same? Re-emphasized? What sort of other options would you have done?
That sort of thing.
In general, the forum opinion has been that Henselt was wasted in carry over games, Radovid's insanity was ill-handled, and there's some controversy over the final decision of Reasons of State.
So let's try and bring something new to those subjects if they get repeated.