Why Ada Lovelace is not a good choice to lead Great Britain

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

today we learned that Ada Lovelace has been chosen as the leader for Great Britain. it is still to be determined what her abilities and agenda will be. That notwithstanding, including Ada as the leader for the British Empire is a big misjudgement on the part of Firaxis. here's why:

1. Historicity: although it is true that non-leaders now lead in civilization, Ada Lovelace was not a good candidate for leading Great Britain. Great Britain was the preeminent world power, with its diplomatic and military accomplishment being the impetus for its rise to power. While Ada did contribute greatly to the computer science, computers do not figure in to the traditional historiography of this period.

2. Fame/prominence: Ada will not be known by many consumers. Famous leaders are a better choice because it drives sales of the game and appeals to a wider audience. she is a niche pick and will not have the pull that some of the more well known leaders will.

3. Other, better choices: the main reason her inclusion is a mistake is that her inclusion as the sole leader of GB excludes by that fact other, more suitable leaders. Leaders that participated in the international relations of the UK, whether in the Americas or Asia, would be a great choice. Political thought leaders would also be suitable because they influenced political thought.

4. prayer for relief: a list of leaders who would make a better choice:

A. Any of the most well known Prime Ministers. in practical terms they led the country and set its agenda. Pitt, Gladstone or Disraeli recommended.

B. A monarch. the obvious choice. Alfred the Great, Richard the Lionheart, George III would all be inspired choices.

C. Military Figure. Britain has no shortage of War heroes including Nelson, Wellesley, Cornwallis, Churchill, Lawrence of Arabia, Robert Clive

Firaxis, if you are reading, please consider adding another leader for Great Britain as soon as possible to cure this defect. it is great to see Great Britain properly added to the game and we hope that you will consider our request as only a suggestion for improvement in a game that otherwise appears to be a wonderful production in the franchise history.

 

[AriochIV]

Once you have an escaped slave as leader of America, a dilettante mathematician as leader of Britain is just icing on the absurdity cake.

 

[ombak]

*yawn*

Leaders aren't chosen for being the best or most historical or famous.

They're chosen because designers and developers find them interesting, feel that they can do interesting things with the game mechanics and enjoy writing for and creating them.

Making it all about obvious choices is boring. With civs and leaders decoupled, there is even less reason to match the leaders design to the civs design than there was before.

Not being known by many consumers is a positive in many ways. A lot of the other leaders you mention would not be known either by your average gamer, so where's the problem there?

And finally, these rants are always disproportionately present when women are selected. I get that individual people may not be consciously thinking of that, but that doesn't change the fact.

 

[sonicmyst]

I think Alan Turing would be better fit if they decide to have a non-state leader in the game. But eh, lets see what LUA Ada has in store.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I don't have to say anything. Isn't that liberating? I don't have to defend wanting her in the game, explain why her legacy is so important, harp about how interesting a person she was... because one of my long-shot leader picks is going to be in the game, inevitably, no matter anyone's opinion on the matter. The future is secured. I am content.

 

[Siptah]

I'm really surprised how many people think Ada Lovelace isn't well known. I was similarly surprised about Ibn Battuta and Machiavelli on this forum, where I expected the vast majority to be familiar with them, but I can see how they are a bit of a special interest. But Ada Lovelace not famous - are you serious? Where have you been the last 40 years when she's mentioned in every text about the history of science, female scientists specifically or just famous influential females in history? If you live in Europe and weren't completely detached from education in the last decades, I think it's really hard to not know about her. I assume it's similar in North America at least.

Edit: I also think the argument that a famous leader would sell better is irrelevant when said leader is sold alongside Great Britain. You can sell Edward II or Mary II with that and their non-existent fame wouldn't have much impact.

 

[sonicmyst]

Lovelace was even the same namesake used by Nvidia for RTX 40 series. It baffles me if a gamer or PC enthusiast does not know about her name.

 

[ehecatzin]

If anything I want more non-ruler leaders, Firaxis, give me Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Geoffrey Chaucer while we are at it.

 

[Venceslau Pietro Pietra]

I think that how "flavorful" and "unique looking" a leader can be influences the choices, why she and not Babbage, for exemple? Because he would be just a guy in a suit, while Ada allows for more colour in the design.

 

[Kankan]

2. Fame/prominence: Ada will not be known by many consumers. Famous leaders are a better choice because it drives sales of the game and appeals to a wider audience. she is a niche pick and will not have the pull that some of the more well known leaders will.

Not only is Ada Lovelace extremely well known in the UK but she’s also well known worldwide, she has awards, universities and even a programming language named after her! There’s plenty of references made to Ada across the world to the point it would be impossible for someone to not know about her so I’m not too sure as to how she is a ‘niche’ pick.

 

[Evie]

She does not lead Great Britain, nor do any of the other leaders lead specific countries, so the entire question of whether she"s a good choice to lead that particular country is profoundly irrelevant.

(She's not even the only British subject who is a leader in the game: Ben Franklin got there first - by all the criteria people use when counting French and American leaders, he's both Beitish and American )

 

[Ryansinbela]

A

If anything I want more non-ruler leaders, Firaxis, give me Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Geoffrey Chaucer while we are at it.

Albert Einstein

 

[evonannoredars]

She does not lead Great Britain, nor do any of the other leaders lead specific countries, so the entire question of whether she"s a good choice to lead that particular country is profoundly irrelevant.

Beat me to saying exactly that haha - shes not the sole leader nor does she prevent any other British leaders from being added.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The first British leader probably should have been a monarch because the British Monarchy as it stands is so iconic and well-known.

But I don't mind that Lady Lovelace is the game, at all. She was a very prolific scientist who also wrote poetry, which gives her additional dimensions over other scientist characters like Curie and Einstein. Her inclusion also doesn't grief the appearance of an English monarch (M/F) later down the road.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

today we learned that Ada Lovelace has been chosen as the leader for Great Britain. it is still to be determined what her abilities and agenda will be. That notwithstanding, including Ada as the leader for the British Empire is a big misjudgement on the part of Firaxis. here's why:

1. Historicity: although it is true that non-leaders now lead in civilization, Ada Lovelace was not a good candidate for leading Great Britain. Great Britain was the preeminent world power, with its diplomatic and military accomplishment being the impetus for its rise to power. While Ada did contribute greatly to the computer science, computers do not figure in to the traditional historiography of this period.

2. Fame/prominence: Ada will not be known by many consumers. Famous leaders are a better choice because it drives sales of the game and appeals to a wider audience. she is a niche pick and will not have the pull that some of the more well known leaders will.

3. Other, better choices: the main reason her inclusion is a mistake is that her inclusion as the sole leader of GB excludes by that fact other, more suitable leaders. Leaders that participated in the international relations of the UK, whether in the Americas or Asia, would be a great choice. Political thought leaders would also be suitable because they influenced political thought.

4. prayer for relief: a list of leaders who would make a better choice:

A. Any of the most well known Prime Ministers. in practical terms they led the country and set its agenda. Pitt, Gladstone or Disraeli recommended.

B. A monarch. the obvious choice. Alfred the Great, Richard the Lionheart, George III would all be inspired choices.

C. Military Figure. Britain has no shortage of War heroes including Nelson, Wellesley, Cornwallis, Churchill, Lawrence of Arabia, Robert Clive

Firaxis, if you are reading, please consider adding another leader for Great Britain as soon as possible to cure this defect. it is great to see Great Britain properly added to the game and we hope that you will consider our request as only a suggestion for improvement in a game that otherwise appears to be a wonderful production in the franchise history.

I agree. You make valid points. We need Henry 8 or Oliver Cromwell, a great man.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

She does not lead Great Britain, nor do any of the other leaders lead specific countries, so the entire question of whether she"s a good choice to lead that particular country is profoundly irrelevant.

(She's not even the only British subject who is a leader in the game: Ben Franklin got there first - by all the criteria people use when counting French and American leaders, he's both Beitish and American )

copium

 

[Evie]

The first British subject to be a leader in the game isn't Lovelace. Ben Franklin was born and lived most of his life a British subject. He was 70 by the times the colonies declared independance.

In fact, Franklin was a British subject almost twice as long as Lovelace was (she died at 37)

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I echo the sentiment of another poster, but with no malice- Harriet Tubman blows the door wide open for leader choices. Lovelace is not an outlier in a roster with Tubman and Trung Trac.

I’m glad she’s in the game, even if I didn’t expect her to be a leader and would prefer if she weren’t. But I also don’t think it hurts to have her in. There will be chances for the prime ministers and male scientists down the line.

 

[HanNorwood]

copium

It is literally, objectively true that she does not lead Great Britain in Civ VII.

 

[Evie]

copium

How to lose all credibility in a single word.