I think a lot of casual players do want the same leaders over and over; I think it's more of us history nerds who want to see more variety and novelty in leader selection. (Empress Maude for second English leader, please and thank you, and she doubles as a German leader. )
Fair point. I do think a game series like this game is great exposure for historical figures. It'll be interesting to see how the double leaders mechanic plays out this time around. I much prefer double leaders over 'personas'.
By which we mean they've repeatedly used the two most famous (by very very very far) English/British monarchs, who happened to be women (using female as a noun when talking about humans is just creepy). (And as others pointed out, Churchill was in IV so you're not even right about that).
And since no leader lead a specific country in Civ VII, and the inclusion of one leader who originates in a country does not mean theY eon't get, the complaint is entirely pointless until we know the full roster of Britain-born leaders. So we can talk again in a few years.
And frankly people whose entire accomplishment list is in the field of military leadership should be commanders, not leaders. People like Frederick, Napoleon, Alexander who were rulers and commanders, and people who had both military and artistic or scientific careers, or military and scholarly (think: Sun Tzu, Clausewitz), sure. But people who only led armies for other people, thanks but no thanks. Wellesley and Nelson are horrible lesder choices.
the game is a 4X. it is explicitly about conquest and exploitation. if that makes you uncomfortable then that is on you. Leaders overwhelmingly throughout history have had military backgrounds. military history has been central to human history. Nelson and Wellesley both had huge diplomatic and military accomplishments that were highly important to the establishment of the British Empire, the largest in history. They are both certainly better leader choices than Lovelace at the very least. But you just want her in so you can have more female leaders in the game. when it comes to actual historicity, she is not as important as they are when it comes to geopolitical/international relations. which, as stated about, the game is primarily focused on.
england/britain has always been among europe’s most willing countries to let women rule—Matilda in the 1100s, Anne, Jane Gray, Mary I, Elizabeth, Mary (as in William and Mary), Victoria I.
As for its DLC status, I like it. I think it’s nice that we’re able to get newer and different civs highlighted for once, and i wouldn’t mind other core civs getting rotated in and out over the series (as zulu, mongolia, aztecs, persia, babylon have with time, despite being series regulars). It’s only fair.
i also don’t appreciate how the convo broadly seems to implicitly accept the premise that ada lovelace is somehow a diversity pick for her gender. it ignores her status as a noble, her status as the first computer scientist, the first programmer, the person who discovered that computers could do more than calculations and more. considering the relevance of computer science in human development and the fact that she recognized the potential of the babbage machine over 100 years before it ever got built, it can’t be understated how much she influenced development of modern society. she’s a great pick for an industrial era scientist, and an industrial scientist is a great choice for great britain
As i stated above, i am not against lovelace because she is a woman per se. it is rather that i wanted certain leaders that happen to be male and will now not get them by opportunity cost.
@Evie Also, for British leaders even if we go with a non military leader i fail to see how Ada is superior to one of the prominent PM such as Gladstone, Disraeli, William Pitt(s). Firaxis direction on this is misguided.
Conquerors have their place, and a more than fair one, in Civilization : men (and women) who forged empires with their conquests, like Friedrich and Charlemagne, Amina and Napoleon, and Genghis soon enough, and others beside. These are conqueror leaders, the forgers of empires, and they absolutely have their place.
Not mere commanders whose sole contribution is to conquer (or protect) other people's empires in their names. Patton is no Civ leader, and neither is Nimitz (MacArthur wished very hard he was, but I wouldn't give it to him either). Neither are Montgomery nor Mountbatten, or Jellicoe. Neither are the vast majority of Napoléon's marshals, Medina Sidonia or Howard (or even Drake, for that matter, though at least circmunavigating the world count for something that'S not winning a battle). The men who built the structure of State that enabled soldiers to go out and win wars and be fed along the way ; and the men whose policies created the alliances that broke enemies before the battle; these are war-winning leaders of civilizations. Not the generals, whose role, noble though it was, was to lead men in battle, and that's what they should be doing in the game too.
And it's not like the idea that winning battle doesn't make you a great man is some novel idea. Yoda said it, of course, but long before Yoda, Sun Tzu had already observed that the most excellent conquerors were those who conquered without fighting battles, while those who merely won battles were far lesser.
Your idea of who leaders should be are some of the most profoundly uninteresting and uninspired I have had the displeasure to read on this forum, and I will celebrate every single step Firaxis take away from that direction.
so...Great Britain is in, it has a unique leader from Great Britain, Ed talked how they are not finished with British civs and more is coming...and people are still unhappy. I swear...
so...Great Britain is in, it has a unique leader from Great Britain, Ed talked how they are not finished with British civs and more is coming...and people are still unhappy. I swear...
Hoping Very much for no England, or Anglo-Saxons
(Celts ok,... Scottish barely ok)
Normans, Danes, Irish are enough for the isles in Exploration... 1 Germanic group (that gets the rest of Europe) and 1 Celtic group (and romans) enough for Antiquity
@Evie Also, for British leaders even if we go with a non military leader i fail to see how Ada is superior to one of the prominent PM such as Gladstone, Disraeli, William Pitt(s). Firaxis direction on this is misguided.
I think Disraeli and Pitt are very interesting historical figures, and maybe they'll come back into public consciousness someday. But right now, nobody writes novels about them or songs about them or comics about them or even memes about them. They are very thoroughly "dead" to public consciousness, in the same way that Longfellow, a very popular American poet of the mid 1800's, is essentially "dead" to modern minds (except as the answer to an occasional Jeopardy! question for some reason--they must have a Longfellow nerd on staff). Nobody reads him anymore.
Ada Lovelace, on the other hand, is a very popular figure in certain areas of academia (history of computing, history of math/science, studies of Romanticism, etc.), and, probably more importantly, in pop culture. People write comics about her (and Charles Babbage). People cosplay her. People write Steampunk fan fiction about her. She is cool. Nobody makes comics about Gladstone. He is "dead."
Your idea of who leaders should be are some of the most profoundly uninteresting and uninspired I have had the displeasure to read on this forum, and I will celebrate every single step Firaxis take away from that direction.
Some people have more conservative ideas about who should be a leader in a Civ game. That's not a reason to insult them.
For me, people whose contributions were entirely within science, engineering, or the arts fall outside of who I believe should be included as a leader. This doesn't mean I don't believe they offered important contributions to humanity. Instead, they gave their contributions completely outside of the province of government, military, politics, civics, etc, and thus we have no idea of how they would behave as a leader of people. While Ada Lovelace is someone whose contributions should be recognized in a game like Civ, I don't believe it's a good fit to have her as a leader.
"With tea becoming increasingly abundant, many citizens of [nation] have begun to shape their lives around the beverage. The daily ritual of "tea time" is not the only order it has brought: the leaves awaken the mind, giving one the energy to push for just one more hour of labor, whether that be in a workshop or a university. The time has started to add up; this could be the eve of something revolutionary."
"With tea becoming increasingly abundant, many citizens of [nation] have begun to shape their lives around the beverage. The daily ritual of "tea time" is not the only order it has brought: the leaves awaken the mind, giving one the energy to push for just one more hour of labor, whether that be in a workshop or a university. The time has started to add up; this could be the eve of something revolutionary."
Yeah, that's why I mentioned Sheep as the starting bias. Though having enough settlements with tea plantations in Distant lands might be an interesting gameplay unlock.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
