Politics aside, this was a really good overview-informative, but not long-winded, considering how much information he had to get across. I get the impression that this guy could probably talk for hours on end about any of these individual subjects, but managed to boil it down to a succinct presentation. Emhyr is lucky to have this guy; hope he pays him well.
When even the officer from an Empire depicted as evil who invades just to conquer starts to worry about Novigrad, you know things are really out of hands.
It was seems to me in the CDPR games, Nilfgaard are depicted more as enlightened equal opportunity killers. So it makes sense that esp. for the cosmopolitan none military nobles, the idea of brutal pogroms and burning apothecaries and torturing soothsayers makes them pretty squeamish. This was further touched on in the Gwent game, when Queen Maeve was ashamed when she realised that brutal as they were, the Nilfgaardians truly did see the north as savages who they didn't care about brutalising, in the same way the north didn't care about brutalising the elves and dwarves.
"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy is not so good. So, too, it is better toe recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them" - Sun Tzu Kinda cool how they put that idea into the game.
yeah a lot easier by losing the war to radovid by default. nilfgaardians still can't understand the fact that you can't simply win by throwing the soldiers at the north.
@@enexe6229player's choices determine the outcome of the Third Nilfgaardian War. It's not certain that which side won the war but we know that Nilfgaardian armies reached Pontar River by 1272
@@alperenbastiat well the problem is that if player doesn't choose at all radovid wins by default. also i guess morvran voorhis will be a way worse ruler than radovid in witcher 4.
@@enexe6229 The Third Northern War is Emhyr's own little project, isn't it? From what we hear in the game, many Nilfgaardian nobles and merchants are against yet another costly expedition into the North, especially when Emhyr already failed two times. So it's not so much that Nilfgaard threw men at the problem as much as lack of support in the heartland, at least in this case.
@@hueylongdong347 well the problem is that emhyr's first reinforcements already failed to conquer novigrad. nilfgaardian nobles can't afford to move more of their armies because they occupy many conqured lands. if they leave to conquer the north then their local people will launch more rebillions within the empire.
Fuck the north, its people have always been racist, superstitious and miserable Even if it does not last forever, it would be good for them to be under Nilfgardian domination for a few decades, to know order and discipline
it never made sense to me how the empire didnt crush the north, that map there just shows the north and territories niflgaard has conquered, the actual empire of nilfgaard territory is at least that size, maybe even bigger. not to mention emhyr is at least the strategist radovid is, maybe better. also i cant help but notice that the map seems to have brokilon down as conquered or even not shown, this i highly doubt. the only way they could conquer brokilon is if they burned it or sent their entire army through it.
James Raven He's not better than Radovid because when you decide to let Radovid live he will eventualy crush the Empire and Redania is strong Nilfgaard kind of underrestimates them :)
Just because their big doesn’t mean they’ll win the north has held of due to their willingness to use spies and tricks instead of using direct blunt warfare
Japanese in WWII conquered most of the southern Pacific yet still cannot completely crush China. It takes resources and manpower to consolidate your conquered territories. Mongolians conquer but they rule poorly. Size isn't everything.
The problem is more that Nilfgaard might be cool in some regards, but is handled extremely poorly as a foe, simply because there is a disconnect between the perceived threat of Nilfgaard and the actual results in the timeline. The battle of Brenna is considered a miracle that many fear could never appear again, but Nilfgaard also "lost" the first war?????? If Nilfgaard has failed twice before, then why wouldn't the north have a fair chance to do it again? Second is that the Nilfgaardian army is supposedly incredibly well drilled, and shown as a disciplined force that outshines northern military doctrine, and they have what a huuge advantage in numbers, how can they lose? I can accept flukes happening here and there, but Nilfgaards numbers are huge, and if the soldiers and commanders too have a better military schooling then how can a man like Radovid turn the tides no matter how clever he personally might be? Plus while Emhyr's personal abilities is not something i can asses, he doesn't appear to be dumb, and the narrator describes both as clever strategists, with Emhyr's vast advantages, it is simply weird to have Radovids supposed genius give him the day. Another thing, Radovid's madness. Radovid is fucking crazy (at least in the w3 he didn't seem so in w2) from all your conversations with him, he act's like he either doesn't have his priorities straight or acts like a complete imbecil like when you SPOILER IF YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED actually kill him, how can that be military genius? In the end, i think the default result is Emhyr's victory, despite you having to do several things to achieve it, simply because it is somewhat uncharacteristic for a main character to not get entangled in the conspiracy due to his relations and circumstances, while it would be even more so if he had let Ves and Roche die.
Nilfgaard lost first war because of northen mages, so Nilfgaard counters that in second game with doing that Thanned isle thing. Radovid just knows how to use every resousrce he has. That chess scene is supposed to be about how Radovid knows how to use every pawn to his full potential and then dispose of them. It was showed in W1 with Salamandra to W3 with Whoreson Junior. I mean, game does pretty bad job at explaining it, but there are some hints about it.
why am I having a really hard time figuring this out? is it just me? I tried so hard to focus and understand what happened and who fought who and who invaded who but Im not getting it
+MaRTiN DaKHeL Then let me break it down into steps : 1- Nilfgaard moved north immediately at the end of the Witcher 2 and essentially swept through Temeria which was in political turmoil and Aedirn which was divided by civil war and subjugated them both before winter. 2- Nilfgaard had to stop campaigning because winter came and medieval armies couldn't campaign easily in winter, for lack of supplies, and they couldn't move north into Redania and Kaedwen. 3- During winter while Nilfgaard was securing its hold on Temeria and Aedirn, Radovid marched over snowed in mountains, an extremely difficult and impractical feat by medieval standards, and so caught Kaedwen completely by surprise and either Kaedwen surrendered immediately (if you killed Henselt in the Witcher 2) or they surrendered immediately after Henselt fell in battle against Radovid. 4- Kaedweni subjected itself and became a vassal to Redania, unbeknownst to Nilfgaard. 5- Spring comes and Nilfgaard resumes its northwards campaign. But Radovid thunders down from the north with the combined might of Redania and Kaedwen. They fight a massive battle in Velen that results in a stalemate and puts an end to Nilfgaard's streak of victories. 6- Situation reaches the status quo it is at when you start the Witcher 3, with Nilfgaard and Redania occupying opposite sides of the Pontar River and trying to figure things out.
@@zenicehero9154 Idk man. Maybe ciri is a better ruler on paper but Continental empires has a thing for infighting and uprisings. I think it is better if the north remains independent but unified, kinda like What happened to germany when all the litte States United to form the north german confederation and eventually germany.
Politics aside, this was a really good overview-informative, but not long-winded, considering how much information he had to get across. I get the impression that this guy could probably talk for hours on end about any of these individual subjects, but managed to boil it down to a succinct presentation.
Emhyr is lucky to have this guy; hope he pays him well.
I wish someone made a total war atilla mod based on the armies of the Witcher franchise.
That would be cool or a Crusader Kings 2 mod
Yuki Terumi Dude I'm with you.
Pretty sure there IS a Crusader kings 2 witcher mod.
There is a mod like this for CK2. It is called Witcher Kings.
@CharlesLeeRay I mean...yeah. sometimes SEGA can be dickish but still.
When even the officer from an Empire depicted as evil who invades just to conquer starts to worry about Novigrad, you know things are really out of hands.
It was seems to me in the CDPR games, Nilfgaard are depicted more as enlightened equal opportunity killers. So it makes sense that esp. for the cosmopolitan none military nobles, the idea of brutal pogroms and burning apothecaries and torturing soothsayers makes them pretty squeamish. This was further touched on in the Gwent game, when Queen Maeve was ashamed when she realised that brutal as they were, the Nilfgaardians truly did see the north as savages who they didn't care about brutalising, in the same way the north didn't care about brutalising the elves and dwarves.
Sounds like the United States; will spill blood all over and will claim to be egalitarians while doing so.
the north didn't brutalize non humans as nilfgaardians did to nords@@HansenDing
@@HansenDinglmao ok brain washed
Because witcher3 is Nilfgardian propaganda and writers sucked a flat cock while writing this
"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy is not so good. So, too, it is better toe recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them" - Sun Tzu
Kinda cool how they put that idea into the game.
Should have read this before the War in Iraq.
Killing the King Foltest was a brilliant move from emperor. Made things a lot easier.
yeah a lot easier by losing the war to radovid by default. nilfgaardians still can't understand the fact that you can't simply win by throwing the soldiers at the north.
@@enexe6229player's choices determine the outcome of the Third Nilfgaardian War. It's not certain that which side won the war but we know that Nilfgaardian armies reached Pontar River by 1272
@@alperenbastiat well the problem is that if player doesn't choose at all radovid wins by default. also i guess morvran voorhis will be a way worse ruler than radovid in witcher 4.
@@enexe6229 The Third Northern War is Emhyr's own little project, isn't it? From what we hear in the game, many Nilfgaardian nobles and merchants are against yet another costly expedition into the North, especially when Emhyr already failed two times. So it's not so much that Nilfgaard threw men at the problem as much as lack of support in the heartland, at least in this case.
@@hueylongdong347 well the problem is that emhyr's first reinforcements already failed to conquer novigrad. nilfgaardian nobles can't afford to move more of their armies because they occupy many conqured lands. if they leave to conquer the north then their local people will launch more rebillions within the empire.
seeing tha battlefields in velen is kinda depressing
best part ab the game there partna
Yes@@_Tristen_
Damn I missed this completely, was wondering why there were so many battlefields in Velen and yet nobody had tried to take Oxenfurt nor Novigrad
All hail his excellency, the chancellor of Redania. Sigismund Dijkstra. Long live the north!
I chose him too.With him as leader North will become more progressed than south and they will invade!
Sigismund Dijkstra the killer of B-Roche
@@YudhistiraTW Fuck Roche. He volunteered to kill you in the Witcher 2.
And I don't side with genocidal racists.
Long Live Radovid !
Fuck the north, its people have always been racist, superstitious and miserable
Even if it does not last forever, it would be good for them to be under Nilfgardian domination for a few decades, to know order and discipline
If Aiedern is conquered what happened to Saskia?
She's still alive apparently
exiled
I was hoping she would've appeared in Witcher 3
it never made sense to me how the empire didnt crush the north, that map there just shows the north and territories niflgaard has conquered, the actual empire of nilfgaard territory is at least that size, maybe even bigger. not to mention emhyr is at least the strategist radovid is, maybe better.
also i cant help but notice that the map seems to have brokilon down as conquered or even not shown, this i highly doubt. the only way they could conquer brokilon is if they burned it or sent their entire army through it.
James Raven He's not better than Radovid because when you decide to let Radovid live he will eventualy crush the Empire and Redania is strong Nilfgaard kind of underrestimates them :)
Just because their big doesn’t mean they’ll win the north has held of due to their willingness to use spies and tricks instead of using direct blunt warfare
Japanese in WWII conquered most of the southern Pacific yet still cannot completely crush China. It takes resources and manpower to consolidate your conquered territories. Mongolians conquer but they rule poorly. Size isn't everything.
The problem is more that Nilfgaard might be cool in some regards, but is handled extremely poorly as a foe, simply because there is a disconnect between the perceived threat of Nilfgaard and the actual results in the timeline. The battle of Brenna is considered a miracle that many fear could never appear again, but Nilfgaard also "lost" the first war?????? If Nilfgaard has failed twice before, then why wouldn't the north have a fair chance to do it again?
Second is that the Nilfgaardian army is supposedly incredibly well drilled, and shown as a disciplined force that outshines northern military doctrine, and they have what a huuge advantage in numbers, how can they lose? I can accept flukes happening here and there, but Nilfgaards numbers are huge, and if the soldiers and commanders too have a better military schooling then how can a man like Radovid turn the tides no matter how clever he personally might be? Plus while Emhyr's personal abilities is not something i can asses, he doesn't appear to be dumb, and the narrator describes both as clever strategists, with Emhyr's vast advantages, it is simply weird to have Radovids supposed genius give him the day.
Another thing, Radovid's madness. Radovid is fucking crazy (at least in the w3 he didn't seem so in w2) from all your conversations with him, he act's like he either doesn't have his priorities straight or acts like a complete imbecil like when you SPOILER IF YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED
actually kill him, how can that be military genius?
In the end, i think the default result is Emhyr's victory, despite you having to do several things to achieve it, simply because it is somewhat uncharacteristic for a main character to not get entangled in the conspiracy due to his relations and circumstances, while it would be even more so if he had let Ves and Roche die.
Nilfgaard lost first war because of northen mages, so Nilfgaard counters that in second game with doing that Thanned isle thing. Radovid just knows how to use every resousrce he has. That chess scene is supposed to be about how Radovid knows how to use every pawn to his full potential and then dispose of them. It was showed in W1 with Salamandra to W3 with Whoreson Junior.
I mean, game does pretty bad job at explaining it, but there are some hints about it.
When does this scene take place?
first time at the palace
Anytime at the palace in Vizimia. I asked him about it late game in Act III.
@@matro2 3 years late haha. Just came across this guy in my recent playthrough. Didn’t know he could be visited later on as well.
I missed this part of the game where do you interact with this guy?
At the beginning of the game when you first visit vizima
All hail Radovid!! The vanquisher of Nilfgaard and Protector of the North!!
Fuck Radovid
All my homies hate Radovid
Hail!
Glory To Redania!!!
why am I having a really hard time figuring this out? is it just me? I tried so hard to focus and understand what happened and who fought who and who invaded who but Im not getting it
+MaRTiN DaKHeL Then let me break it down into steps :
1- Nilfgaard moved north immediately at the end of the Witcher 2 and essentially swept through Temeria which was in political turmoil and Aedirn which was divided by civil war and subjugated them both before winter.
2- Nilfgaard had to stop campaigning because winter came and medieval armies couldn't campaign easily in winter, for lack of supplies, and they couldn't move north into Redania and Kaedwen.
3- During winter while Nilfgaard was securing its hold on Temeria and Aedirn, Radovid marched over snowed in mountains, an extremely difficult and impractical feat by medieval standards, and so caught Kaedwen completely by surprise and either Kaedwen surrendered immediately (if you killed Henselt in the Witcher 2) or they surrendered immediately after Henselt fell in battle against Radovid.
4- Kaedweni subjected itself and became a vassal to Redania, unbeknownst to Nilfgaard.
5- Spring comes and Nilfgaard resumes its northwards campaign. But Radovid thunders down from the north with the combined might of Redania and Kaedwen. They fight a massive battle in Velen that results in a stalemate and puts an end to Nilfgaard's streak of victories.
6- Situation reaches the status quo it is at when you start the Witcher 3, with Nilfgaard and Redania occupying opposite sides of the Pontar River and trying to figure things out.
Kris Norge
thank you so much this helped me alot
So wait, if you kill or spare Henselt it make no difference?
If you spare henselt in w2, then radovid still conquers kaedwen. It just took him more resources and effort to do so
@@krisnorge5830 Thank you
Radovid will drag their faces across the mud .
Nilfgaard all the way!☀️They are def the best choice for future of the Continent with Ciri as their Ruler
Nah Sigismund as lord of the north is the best.
@@dancingcucumber9183 Sigismund Dijsktra is def a better ruler than Both Emhyr n Radovid but hes Inferior than Ciri...
@@zenicehero9154 Idk man. Maybe ciri is a better ruler on paper but Continental empires has a thing for infighting and uprisings. I think it is better if the north remains independent but unified, kinda like What happened to germany when all the litte States United to form the north german confederation and eventually germany.
@@dancingcucumber9183ame as italy
@@dancingcucumber9183 The unification of Germany under Prussia was a disaster for Europe though.
Oof.. 30 fps hurts my head now