I like how here Geralt knocked some sense into Roche. It was like "dude, I'm supposed to be the neutral one, but you definitely suck at being a patriot and here's why"
Am I the only one who sees here some parallels to one of Witcher 3 endings? Anais - Vernon taught her to defend herself, Natalis taught her the art of war. Ciri - Geralt taught her to defend herself, Emhyr taught her to rule.
Eh, to be honest, Anais was unfortunatly dead on any case. The Nilfgardians attacked without warning and in full force, while most of the country was in turmoil. Even if someone every single one of the nobles decided "ok, she is the rightful queen", they wouldn't have been able to regroup their forces in time to put up a sufficient resistance. So either A ) She goes to Radovid... where she becames the last legitimate ruler to Temeria. Right in his hands. Right after he has just either murdering Henselt of conquering Kaedwen to force them to submission and fight them. Add to that the problem that Foltest had bad habits about his lover, which reflects on how people would see her. B ) She in Vizima... that gets stormed by the full frontal force of the unending legions of the Black Ones. And they don't play by any rule: you either surrender without condition immediately ( and just earn a few years of survival while you see your people get evicted and their land and stuff given to "settlers" ), get enslaved or die. They don't see Nordlings as people, as a rule, and kings are no better. Even Natalis couldn't hold the front for more than 3 days.
@@eliczek6142 Temeria effectively doesn't have a royal line anymore in 3, since as I said, Anais pretty is much given for dead. As such it doesn't really have a king nor queen. If it's left as a Vassal State ( like say Beauclair ) they probably will either choose a new one or the Nilfgaardian will pick one for them ( probably something in the middle since the true makers of the new Kingdom are Roche and the rest of his gang, after the death of Djikstra. )
@@drazarkabalblade9486 Good summary. Anaïs is probably dead or someone's puppet. Also, Foltest had just rallied thousands of men to his cause of laying seige to La Valette Castle. Thousands probably died during this fight with one of the most prominent families in Temeria, so they weren't even at full strength when they faced Nilfgaard. Also, I know I'm going off topic here, but I really want to say this. I don't like how Nilfgaard just seemingly steamrolled Lyria and Rivia, as if they would put up no fight. I've watched Thronebreaker and Meve is one of the main reasons the north won the second Nilfgaardian war, yet she gets hardly any mention.
This was one of the saddest moment for me. Seeing a little girl dragged here and there not knowing who see can trust. We see Louisa LA valette with general Voorhis in W3 but not Anais, they should have atleast mentioned if she was alive
She probably dead, Witcher Universe it's not a safe place for a little girl with dying royal blood. Even if she live, it's not really matter in the end.
@@admiralamel9563 I'm pretty sure she's alive. In Iorveth's path she's likely kidnapped by Count Maravel and handed over to the Nilfgaardians. In Roche's path she's with Roche's resistance group if you chose to help Triss instead. In the path chosen by this video she could be either captured by the Nilfgaardians or hidden away by Temerian resistance. Each of these options would allow the Temerian resistance to make a side-deal with Nilfgaard, having them kill Radovid in exchange for a autonomous Temeria presumably with Anais on the throne. Roche handing over Anaïs to the Redanians is basically impossible to be cannon though as Roche definitely switches his allegiance to Radovid and the Redanians in that ending which is clearly incompatible with the fact that he is still a hardcore Temerian loyalist in Witcher 3.
@@admiralamel9563 She probably lives. While we know too little about the northern political situation during The Third War, it's safe to assume that's she's either in Tretogor, living under Radovid's protection or being engaged to him, or in Nilfgaard as a political leverage (+ Nilfgaard and La Valettes are actively cooperating, and killing the future of their house wouldn't make sense). Temeria is one of the most important kingdoms of the North, and letting Anais die would be foolish, as there are other nobles in Temeria with royal blood in their veins who could seek the throne and the child is much more easier to control.
A little fun fact that if you sided with Siegfried and order in witcher 1 and imported the save you won't be fighting the order here, he will order his men to stand down and will let us go. Although I'm not sure because I chose to be neutral
And none of this matters jack-s in the third game - that's just disappointing: as good a game as the third one is, the fact that almost nothing from here matters there is a real bummer.
A shame Witcher 3 threw all the possible story effects to the dirt, Witcher 2 had the best story out of all the games, but I guess I have a soft spot for Temeria since it reminds me of the realm that once existed in our lands, and with today's borders is my country. Existed and was overrun by a vast Empire, while its neighbors let it fall and betrayed it. My home city stood at the border of the conquered realm for nearly a century before it was won, not by sword but demoralized hearts and treachery. Surrender terms were laid and broken, refugees were butchered like cattle and the city was sacked, burnt. Nothing remains of our medieval walls, all that is left is a few stones.Later our city was added to the country that holds it today, when technically there is no claim to it. Kind of funny when you think about it.
I import witcher 1 side with knights of the order. In 2:10, the leader is Grandmaster Siegfried. Siegfried allow Geralt and Roche pass without the fight. Radovid turn crazy and burn almost mage. Even the conclave reform, Later old friend Kalkstein burn just because he is alchemist. After saved mage, witch hunter turn against nonhuman. Radovid order his men kill Geralt because "I found you annoyance." Cecil Burdon and Skalen Burdon got hanged in this path. In 6:29.
I know, but I really hate this crazy king. In paragraph 3 is witcher 3 events. After saw Radovid and hunter kill a lot of mage and nonhuman(Some of them are innocent. Just because bloody Eternal Fire provoke), I never let he win. Kalkstein is the alchemist appear in witcher 1. However, he burned by witch hunters in witcher 3. Sorry, No offense. And Triss said "Win wars need coins, more coins. So they kill mage and confiscating their property. They'll go after nonhuman next." Witch hunt still happen in witcher 3 no matter save Triss or Anais or Dragon.
+成是 what radovid does in witcher 3 still has nothing in common with radovid from witcher 2&1. shilard provoked this and im glad I saved triss and killed the old fart. so in my canon mages and soldiers killed the nilfs and conspirators in loc muinne.
I have to agree with others that Roche Gives Anais to John Natalis, instead of Radovid doesn’t really impact The Witcher 3 at all like how Geralt is still on good terms with Roche, Temeria as well, Henselt dies off screen and Eidern, and the pontar valley are just steamed over by nilfgaard. It’s like the last two games don’t matter unless you care about the little Easter eggs and callbacks. This reminds me too much of Dragon Age where devs claim that "Your choices will matter" is just bullshit.
Do we still get that ending slide if you let Roche kill Henselt at the battle of Vergen? The Kaedwen soldiers can't really call it a victory if their leader dies and Saskia lives
@@TaxFraudTutorials When everything said and done, an outcome remains the same as far as game mechanics go. So it all boils down to a common sentiment - which characters you sympathize with the most?
@@borealsullivan5486 I've done both playthroughs and I'm a Roche stan to the end, but I typically try to give Iorveth & Pals as many wins as I possibly can while I'm playing the other side. That is to say, I always give Iorveth his Sword when I'm doing the Roche path, just wondering if letting Roche kill henselt also aligns with that idea. Also Nonhumans really get shafted all the way through these games hahah, the only reason I side with the Order in the first game is because it's the only choice that has a physical carry-over in this game.
I allways choose to save Anais or Saskia depending on the path, but i never saved Triss, i dont hate her but, those two are more important in my opinion, i cant leave a innocent child and Saskia is 😇😍
Or if you’re on Roche’s path, you can technically save both Triss and Anaïs as long as you choose to kill Henselt. If you kill Henselt and then choose to save Triss, Roche will successfully save Anaïs on his own. The only catch is that Roche will then be wanted for Henselt’s murder, so he goes on the run and takes Anaïs with him, keeping her safe while Temeria collapses into civil war.
@@matheussilva5293 I looked back twice and still think it looks like him, and he has no helmet like him. But I finally caught up w/ xLetalis playthrough where Geralt meets Roche in 3 and he mentions Natalis in war vs Emhyr. So I'd say you must be right.
@@erheetrherh2659 I think that would've made the story too long for a single game just imagine if they took all the political plot from the w2 ot could've become a game of its own and saving ciri would've been another story
The witcher 2 kinda had a more complex amd adult story. TW3 is great and i love it but sometimes it treats the gamer like a child. Like giving corvo bianco to Geralt even though it makes no sense for him to live there.
Actually it make sense if he end's up with yennefer ( most canon option) With triss have nosense koz triss end up being the sorceress of the king of kovir. And if we got the bad ending (Ciri dying) geralt dies... sooo
@@srmagicpanda9606 I disagree, there is nothing to suggest that geralt and yennifer are capable of having a relationship long term. Especially when confined in one house
@@herbseinburg449 yeah people want a lot of things doesn't mean it's going to realistically happen. People also don't always want what's best for them.
can you make a video on your thoughts of how In the witcher 1, should you choose to save Adda, Radovid plans to marry her, and in TW2, should you chooswe to save foltest's bastard, radovid plans to marry her too.. and in TW3, it isn't even mentioned again?
Not that any of it matters in TW3 but Natalis, a common born, being allowed to rule as regent? I just don't see the barons allowing that. More likely they'll resent him for it and try to seize the child for themselves, like what Baron Kimbold did. I mean the main reason that the Coalition tried to oust Dong Zhuo during the 3 kingdoms era was because he was an unknown upstart from a frontier province and the thought was "if anyone should be the regent, it should be me." As said before by so many others in TW, old Natalis is a good soldier and a poor politician... so I don't see him surviving court machinations without any help from some more cunning loyalists. Roche is special forces so he isn't exactly an expert at politics either. Dude was about to hand him over to Radovid until Geralt said something.
@@piotrwachowicz9669 Saving Triss helps avoiding much of the hatred for the mages in 3. While Radovid still goes with his purges and Novigrad is hateful of them as ever, it's less violent around I remember. It changes for sure in the second since you see a much, much less violent effect.
@@piotrwachowicz9669 ya, but without Triss to speak at the meeting, the mages get the blame and they're all burnt, impaled and slaughtered in the epilogue.
@@suleymanbabak1973 but doesn’t that happen anyways? It seems like the culling of the mages in novigrad and I’m assuming everywhere else in the north was going to happen almost regardless of what happened at the summit and who was there.
You have more control in Witcher 2 combat, though there is some mod that improve the combat like Full Combat Rebalance 2. www.nexusmods.com/witcher2/mods/822 Some say it's was made by CDRP employee. So try it, it's really make you feel like a Witcher, tactical fighter with a lot instrument in his disposal.
politics was so much more interesting in witcher 2. obviously three is superior but I'd love a huge witcher game with political intrigue like this again.
Agreed. It's a damn shame. In W3 the two options to have the north be independent was made completely unappealing, while Nilfgaard was changed from an expansionist empire with lebensraum tactics to a tolerant empire that will save the north from Radovid and the witch hunters.
I like how here Geralt knocked some sense into Roche. It was like "dude, I'm supposed to be the neutral one, but you definitely suck at being a patriot and here's why"
True
Geralt defeated Roche with facts and logic
I don't know what's worst, he wanting to give Anais to Radovid on witcher 2, or selling the North to Nilfgaard on Witcher 3...
Am I the only one who sees here some parallels to one of Witcher 3 endings?
Anais - Vernon taught her to defend herself, Natalis taught her the art of war.
Ciri - Geralt taught her to defend herself, Emhyr taught her to rule.
yep
Here another TW2's important choice the writers just ignored in TW3
This and witch hunt..
Who's the king(queen)of temaria in w3(choices)
Eh, to be honest, Anais was unfortunatly dead on any case. The Nilfgardians attacked without warning and in full force, while most of the country was in turmoil. Even if someone every single one of the nobles decided "ok, she is the rightful queen", they wouldn't have been able to regroup their forces in time to put up a sufficient resistance.
So either A ) She goes to Radovid... where she becames the last legitimate ruler to Temeria. Right in his hands. Right after he has just either murdering Henselt of conquering Kaedwen to force them to submission and fight them. Add to that the problem that Foltest had bad habits about his lover, which reflects on how people would see her.
B ) She in Vizima... that gets stormed by the full frontal force of the unending legions of the Black Ones. And they don't play by any rule: you either surrender without condition immediately ( and just earn a few years of survival while you see your people get evicted and their land and stuff given to "settlers" ), get enslaved or die. They don't see Nordlings as people, as a rule, and kings are no better.
Even Natalis couldn't hold the front for more than 3 days.
@@eliczek6142 Temeria effectively doesn't have a royal line anymore in 3, since as I said, Anais pretty is much given for dead. As such it doesn't really have a king nor queen. If it's left as a Vassal State ( like say Beauclair ) they probably will either choose a new one or the Nilfgaardian will pick one for them ( probably something in the middle since the true makers of the new Kingdom are Roche and the rest of his gang, after the death of Djikstra. )
@@drazarkabalblade9486 Good summary. Anaïs is probably dead or someone's puppet. Also, Foltest had just rallied thousands of men to his cause of laying seige to La Valette Castle. Thousands probably died during this fight with one of the most prominent families in Temeria, so they weren't even at full strength when they faced Nilfgaard.
Also, I know I'm going off topic here, but I really want to say this. I don't like how Nilfgaard just seemingly steamrolled Lyria and Rivia, as if they would put up no fight. I've watched Thronebreaker and Meve is one of the main reasons the north won the second Nilfgaardian war, yet she gets hardly any mention.
“She terrified.” While the girl has the straightens face ever
1:50 "...brands are though to scrub off."
Watching this video after having just completed TW3 DLC Heart of Stone gives me a chill spine...
My ending, best ending for TW2.
For Temeria, for Foltest!
Closest name to "Letalis" in the game, I had to do it ;]
You mean John Natalis? He sure was a good person in a land filled with vultures.
Anais should've at least been mentioned in TW3 if Temeria is restored in the epilogue.
indeed
This was one of the saddest moment for me. Seeing a little girl dragged here and there not knowing who see can trust.
We see Louisa LA valette with general Voorhis in W3 but not Anais, they should have atleast mentioned if she was alive
She's not.
She probably dead, Witcher Universe it's not a safe place for a little girl with dying royal blood. Even if she live, it's not really matter in the end.
@@admiralamel9563
I'm pretty sure she's alive. In Iorveth's path she's likely kidnapped by Count Maravel and handed over to the Nilfgaardians. In Roche's path she's with Roche's resistance group if you chose to help Triss instead. In the path chosen by this video she could be either captured by the Nilfgaardians or hidden away by Temerian resistance. Each of these options would allow the Temerian resistance to make a side-deal with Nilfgaard, having them kill Radovid in exchange for a autonomous Temeria presumably with Anais on the throne.
Roche handing over Anaïs to the Redanians is basically impossible to be cannon though as Roche definitely switches his allegiance to Radovid and the Redanians in that ending which is clearly incompatible with the fact that he is still a hardcore Temerian loyalist in Witcher 3.
@@admiralamel9563 She probably lives. While we know too little about the northern political situation during The Third War, it's safe to assume that's she's either in Tretogor, living under Radovid's protection or being engaged to him, or in Nilfgaard as a political leverage (+ Nilfgaard and La Valettes are actively cooperating, and killing the future of their house wouldn't make sense). Temeria is one of the most important kingdoms of the North, and letting Anais die would be foolish, as there are other nobles in Temeria with royal blood in their veins who could seek the throne and the child is much more easier to control.
she is, probably ward for emhyr, to hold the temerians as vassals with her until she comes of age and rules Temeria as for example beaucalir.
A little fun fact that if you sided with Siegfried and order in witcher 1 and imported the save you won't be fighting the order here, he will order his men to stand down and will let us go. Although I'm not sure because I chose to be neutral
Best ending in Roche's path tbh
And none of this matters jack-s in the third game - that's just disappointing: as good a game as the third one is, the fact that almost nothing from here matters there is a real bummer.
Natalis goes missing after Witcher 3 death not confirmed same goes of Anis. Perhaps in a later both will comeback to rule a free temeria
Going through a witcher 2 playthrough as well I see! Funny we have to go back and play old games to get any satisfaction with gaming today...
A shame Witcher 3 threw all the possible story effects to the dirt, Witcher 2 had the best story out of all the games, but I guess I have a soft spot for Temeria since it reminds me of the realm that once existed in our lands, and with today's borders is my country. Existed and was overrun by a vast Empire, while its neighbors let it fall and betrayed it. My home city stood at the border of the conquered realm for nearly a century before it was won, not by sword but demoralized hearts and treachery. Surrender terms were laid and broken, refugees were butchered like cattle and the city was sacked, burnt. Nothing remains of our medieval walls, all that is left is a few stones.Later our city was added to the country that holds it today, when technically there is no claim to it. Kind of funny when you think about it.
what country are you talking about?
Witcher 1 story is better in my opinion
I import witcher 1 side with knights of the order.
In 2:10, the leader is Grandmaster Siegfried. Siegfried allow Geralt and Roche pass without the fight.
Radovid turn crazy and burn almost mage. Even the conclave reform, Later old friend Kalkstein burn just because he is alchemist. After saved mage, witch hunter turn against nonhuman. Radovid order his men kill Geralt because "I found you annoyance."
Cecil Burdon and Skalen Burdon got hanged in this path. In 6:29.
in witcher 2 he is justified in killing mages glad it didn't happen in my canon and triss restored the conclave
I know, but I really hate this crazy king. In paragraph 3 is witcher 3 events. After saw Radovid and hunter kill a lot of mage and nonhuman(Some of them are innocent. Just because bloody Eternal Fire provoke), I never let he win.
Kalkstein is the alchemist appear in witcher 1. However, he burned by witch hunters in witcher 3.
Sorry, No offense. And Triss said "Win wars need coins, more coins. So they kill mage and confiscating their property. They'll go after nonhuman next." Witch hunt still happen in witcher 3 no matter save Triss or Anais or Dragon.
+成是 what radovid does in witcher 3 still has nothing in common with radovid from witcher 2&1. shilard provoked this and im glad I saved triss and killed the old fart. so in my canon mages and soldiers killed the nilfs and conspirators in loc muinne.
if you save triss witch hunters will burn only free mages. the conclave still works for him in that case.
+Roger Murtaugh well geralt is not a prophet. she also lets mages work with radovid.
I have to agree with others that Roche Gives Anais to John Natalis, instead of Radovid doesn’t really impact The Witcher 3 at all like how Geralt is still on good terms with Roche, Temeria as well, Henselt dies off screen and Eidern, and the pontar valley are just steamed over by nilfgaard. It’s like the last two games don’t matter unless you care about the little Easter eggs and callbacks. This reminds me too much of Dragon Age where devs claim that "Your choices will matter" is just bullshit.
It's so heartbreaking seeing Cecil and Scallen on a scaffold... One of many reasons I prefer Iorvet's path to Roche's
Do we still get that ending slide if you let Roche kill Henselt at the battle of Vergen? The Kaedwen soldiers can't really call it a victory if their leader dies and Saskia lives
@@TaxFraudTutorials When everything said and done, an outcome remains the same as far as game mechanics go. So it all boils down to a common sentiment - which characters you sympathize with the most?
@@borealsullivan5486 I've done both playthroughs and I'm a Roche stan to the end, but I typically try to give Iorveth & Pals as many wins as I possibly can while I'm playing the other side. That is to say, I always give Iorveth his Sword when I'm doing the Roche path, just wondering if letting Roche kill henselt also aligns with that idea.
Also Nonhumans really get shafted all the way through these games hahah, the only reason I side with the Order in the first game is because it's the only choice that has a physical carry-over in this game.
oh. a good ending. that was unexpected for this channel
lol no that's a bad ending
I allways choose to save Anais or Saskia depending on the path, but i never saved Triss, i dont hate her but, those two are more important in my opinion, i cant leave a innocent child and Saskia is 😇😍
Or if you’re on Roche’s path, you can technically save both Triss and Anaïs as long as you choose to kill Henselt. If you kill Henselt and then choose to save Triss, Roche will successfully save Anaïs on his own. The only catch is that Roche will then be wanted for Henselt’s murder, so he goes on the run and takes Anaïs with him, keeping her safe while Temeria collapses into civil war.
I like to not save Triss because Letho saves her.
"Natalis will teach her the art of war" ... But wasn't John Natalis crushed by Saesenthesis the dragon when she arrived? ...
gosh i dont remember
I think that was just a random soldier
@@matheussilva5293 I looked back twice and still think it looks like him, and he has no helmet like him. But I finally caught up w/ xLetalis playthrough where Geralt meets Roche in 3 and he mentions Natalis in war vs Emhyr. So I'd say you must be right.
the future calanthe of temeria
You gotta do the other if you ever want to see Roche in Redanian red.
That sucks I got that lame ending
Sad all our decisions don't matter in the witcher 3
Yeah Witcher 3 that concentrated on the politics of witcher would have been interesting.
@@erheetrherh2659 I think that would've made the story too long for a single game just imagine if they took all the political plot from the w2 ot could've become a game of its own and saving ciri would've been another story
Canon.
your canon maybe
Uhh the title is soo dirty in Portuguese...
Breno Lelis indeed 😂😂
Breno Lelis Claro
Breno Lelis kkkkkkk
BassBabacaxi eu faço faculdade de história, eu tenho anais e crônicas enfiado até o cu
Can somebody explain why cx?
It's sad that you can't save both the Pontar valley and Temeria
The witcher 2 kinda had a more complex amd adult story. TW3 is great and i love it but sometimes it treats the gamer like a child. Like giving corvo bianco to Geralt even though it makes no sense for him to live there.
Actually it make sense if he end's up with yennefer ( most canon option)
With triss have nosense koz triss end up being the sorceress of the king of kovir.
And if we got the bad ending (Ciri dying) geralt dies... sooo
@@srmagicpanda9606 I disagree, there is nothing to suggest that geralt and yennifer are capable of having a relationship long term. Especially when confined in one house
@@thomassmith2891 why? That’s what they both wanted in the books I’m pretty sure
@@herbseinburg449 yeah people want a lot of things doesn't mean it's going to realistically happen. People also don't always want what's best for them.
@@thomassmith2891 What?
can you make a video on your thoughts of how In the witcher 1, should you choose to save Adda, Radovid plans to marry her, and in TW2, should you chooswe to save foltest's bastard, radovid plans to marry her too.. and in TW3, it isn't even mentioned again?
Tell me i get to boot Nilfgaard off Temerian soil in 3.
Donaldshel Trumpstein When Nilfgaard is the lesser of two evils (bro betrayal notwithstanding) you know things are messed up.
No matter what happens in The Witcher 3, Temeria never ends in Nilfgaard's hands
Not that any of it matters in TW3 but
Natalis, a common born, being allowed to rule as regent? I just don't see the barons allowing that. More likely they'll resent him for it and try to seize the child for themselves, like what Baron Kimbold did.
I mean the main reason that the Coalition tried to oust Dong Zhuo during the 3 kingdoms era was because he was an unknown upstart from a frontier province and the thought was "if anyone should be the regent, it should be me."
As said before by so many others in TW, old Natalis is a good soldier and a poor politician... so I don't see him surviving court machinations without any help from some more cunning loyalists. Roche is special forces so he isn't exactly an expert at politics either. Dude was about to hand him over to Radovid until Geralt said something.
Long live the queen
What happens to Triss if you choose to rescue Anais?
Letho ends up saving her
Looks like it's the best posible ending then. For Roche, Triss, Anais and Temeria as a country
@@piotrwachowicz9669 Saving Triss helps avoiding much of the hatred for the mages in 3. While Radovid still goes with his purges and Novigrad is hateful of them as ever, it's less violent around I remember.
It changes for sure in the second since you see a much, much less violent effect.
@@piotrwachowicz9669 ya, but without Triss to speak at the meeting, the mages get the blame and they're all burnt, impaled and slaughtered in the epilogue.
@@suleymanbabak1973 but doesn’t that happen anyways? It seems like the culling of the mages in novigrad and I’m assuming everywhere else in the north was going to happen almost regardless of what happened at the summit and who was there.
So what happened to this queen of Temeria? Looks like Emhyr didn't give two shits about her rule.
@Abu Troll al cockroachistan Hahaha what
So what happened to Triss if you saved Anais?
Letho rescues her from the Nilgaardian Camp and lets her walk back to Geralt at the end
This is the way I choose✊😁
So, Triss is useless in this part.
I thought there is finally something dirty going on in TW games, but it's just me misread the title
It seems the Witcher 2 is even more complicated than the Witcher 3.
So many choices ...
I want to finish it one day, but the gameplay is so horrible.
gameplay is vastly superior than tw3.
You have more control in Witcher 2 combat, though there is some mod that improve the combat like Full Combat Rebalance 2.
www.nexusmods.com/witcher2/mods/822
Some say it's was made by CDRP employee. So try it, it's really make you feel like a Witcher, tactical fighter with a lot instrument in his disposal.
@@mctorus lol
@@mctorus Hell no.
@@mctorus Bro what? lol it's pretty bad is tw2 but the story makes up for it
politics was so much more interesting in witcher 2. obviously three is superior but I'd love a huge witcher game with political intrigue like this again.
indeed
Agreed. It's a damn shame. In W3 the two options to have the north be independent was made completely unappealing, while Nilfgaard was changed from an expansionist empire with lebensraum tactics to a tolerant empire that will save the north from Radovid and the witch hunters.