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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Definitely fair, especially woth how Rizal is viewed; though if it were up to me I'd have chosen Bonifacio, Mabini, Magsaysay, or Quezon before Rizal in previous games. For 7 I feel like he fits the best

Jose Rizal has the popularity though, compared to all those others you mentioned. You've obviously know about Filipinos more than the average person.

Looks like many people are getting confused England is not Britain - Elizabeth 1 is an English leader

So Ada Lovelace is as a pretty decent and good choice, at least it's not a racist war criminal

​

The best female head of state to represent actual Great Britain would probably be Victoria. Of course, she just appeared with a persona in the last game so that's probably a reason they weren't going to choose her again.
Speaking of her persona, I wouldn't be surprised if Age of Steam Victoria was a precursor to what we might experience with Ada Lovelace.

 

[Archanist]

Jose Rizal has the popularity though, compared to all those others you mentioned. You've obviously know about Filipinos more than the average person.

Yup, even amongst Filipinos Rizal would be the choice to lead. I'm admittedly biased against him since he didn't lead while the others did. (And also because I'd want others to learn about them as well)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Had Archimedes not come up with calculus, we would have to wait 1800 years for it. And we did, because in the time of Archimedes there was no incentive to examine functions without meaningful geometric representation
Sometimes important people do appear in math/science.

also worth noting that since calc has come up here, ada lovelace was key to the development of certain forms of calculus (i think algebraic? but i don’t know math like that)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The best female head of state to represent actual Great Britain would probably be Victoria

if you don’t have issues with hyper-recent figures, elizabeth ii has comparatively less problematic decisions, but i’d assume she’d need to be dead for 80 more years to be viable, and she’s not actually a head of state who had any power

 

[RedCourtJester]

also worth noting that since calc has come up here, ada lovelace was key to the development of certain forms of calculus (i think algebraic? but i don’t know math like that)

She apparently also hypothesized what is effectively computational theory of mind, the idea that animals are all just wetware computers.

if you don’t have issues with hyper-recent figures, elizabeth ii has comparatively less problematic decisions, but i’d assume she’d need to be dead for 80 more years to be viable, and she’s not actually a head of state who had any power

I mean, she clearly had power, just not unilateral monarchical power like in ye olden times. A lot of modern royalty is "unproblematic," but I still wouldn't want them in because even an unproblematic modern monarch is a problem.

 

[Kyriakos]

I am really against selecting authors (of fiction) as leaders.
It really makes no sense, imo.
I also fear that the bonuses those people may bring, simply do not translate to state rulers, so will be merely a gimmick. Granted, civ bonuses already were usually a gimmick, but at least they could be based on eras (eg ancient Greece had math development/other, industrial Britain had industry/other, Portugal had colonization/other etc).
Imagine having Franz Kafka - who lately has become a teen favorite, btw - as leader in a Civ game. Then consider if Kafka would ever be ruling a country irl.

I did like Sappho in Ara, but she was just a symbol of stuff - and we know very little of her actual traits as a person. In Ara she is a cute girl and has iirc cultural bonuses.

Here she is, next to the pitiful omega emblem:

 

[Evie]

Bringing immortality to rulers, on the other hand, is not a gimmick.

The idea that leaders in the game are the actual political rulers on nations has been untenable since Civ I.

 

[Kyriakos]

Bringing immortality to rulers, on the other hand, is not a gimmick.

The idea that leaders in the game are the actual political rulers on nations has been untenable since Civ I.

I'd prefer civ traits. Which is what existed in Civ3. There are problems there too, but at least eras can last for much longer than a few lifetimes.
I fear that Firaxis tried to dilute any differences which could be down to "civs" (due to connotation), so chose leader traits instead. And now they went one step further, having leaders not even be tied to civs. But we already had leaders not tied to civs - they are called: the actual players of the game

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

if you don’t have issues with hyper-recent figures, elizabeth ii has comparatively less problematic decisions, but i’d assume she’d need to be dead for 80 more years to be viable, and she’s not actually a head of state who had any power

Considering I felt that Halie Selassie was a too recent pick for them to include...

 

[Patine]

I'd prefer civ traits. Which is what existed in Civ3. There are problems there too, but at least eras can last for much longer than a few lifetimes.
I fear that Firaxis tried to dilute any differences which could be down to "civs" (due to connotation), so chose leader traits instead. And now they went one step further, having leaders not even be tied to civs. But we already had leaders not tied to civs - they are called: the actual players of the game

No, there were immortal leaders in Civ3, too. The difference was, they all got a wardrobe change every age, which often led to ridiculous and jarring outfits.

 

[Civinator]

No, there were immortal leaders in Civ3, too. The difference was, they all got a wardrobe change every age, which often led to ridiculous and jarring outfits.

The eraspecific "wardrobe change" is the base for different eraspecific leaders in Civ 3. Since the C3X mod these eraspecific different leaders can even have different names during the game.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I am really against selecting authors (of fiction) as leaders.
It really makes no sense, imo.
I also fear that the bonuses those people may bring, simply do not translate to state rulers, so will be merely a gimmick. Granted, civ bonuses already were usually a gimmick, but at least they could be based on eras (eg ancient Greece had math development/other, industrial Britain had industry/other, Portugal had colonization/other etc).
Imagine having Franz Kafka - who lately has become a teen favorite, btw - as leader in a Civ game. Then consider if Kafka would ever be ruling a country irl.

I did like Sappho in Ara, but she was just a symbol of stuff - and we know very little of her actual traits as a person. In Ara she is a cute girl and has iirc cultural bonuses.

Here she is, next to the pitiful omega emblem:

View attachment 717666

As far as fiction goes, I agree. The only fictional context in which I would say it might have had more-than-substantial real-world consequences is science fiction, and while you could point to leaps in that with authors like Wells, Herbert, Rodenberry, Asimov, Dick, LeGuin, I think Jules Verne sufficiently described several massively ambitious leaps in science (moon landing, deep sea diving, globalist air travel, etc.) at such an early point in history that I would give him the distinction. He practically created the entire futurism/steampunk aesthetic that we see in thing from Tomorrowland to Bioshock. For me he is the only fiction author who makes sense as a leader (he is also the most translated author aside from Agatha Christie, even edging out Shakespeare, which I think lends credence to his global influence).

(he also was a driving force behind surrealism, so we could knock that out without needing to delve into leaders like Kafka/Breton/Dali)

Sophocles or Sappho are different beasts who might get in for other reasons. Sophocles would be recognized more for setting out a wide range of dramaturgic archetypes in Western culture; imo I don't think his representation is on the level of Ada or Jules or a Bach or Marx, but would be thoroughly serviceable as a leader representing "Greece."

Sappho would be recognized for her cultural legacy, more than anything. She is the Ada Lovelace of lesbianism, which I think could be a "movement" worth representing in its own right. Given that it is easier to pinpoint a "figurehead" for that brand of queerness as opposed to male homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality, etc. etc., I think she would be a thoroughly satisfying choice for an "LGBT" leader.

(Also, we already have Frederick the Fabulous so I'm quite satisfied as a homo dude for male representation)

 

[Leucarum]

She is the Ada Lovelace of lesbianism

There are some sentences you never expect to read. I don't disagree but... thank you firaxis for enabling that sentence to exist.

 

[Patine]

The eraspecific "wardrobe change" is the base for different eraspecific leaders in Civ 3. Since the C3X mod these eraspecific different leaders can even have different names during the game.

I was unaware of such a mod.

 

[Civinator]

I was unaware of such a mod.

It is the mod CCM 3 (about 600 downloads in the last half year).

 

[GeneralZIft]

This looks like a very hot topic, but my opinion is a little more aligned with the OP than not - they could have went with Churchill, Victoria, Elizabeth and put in Lovelace later (would be more preferential in the short term)

But in my humble opinion, the more unique and more obscure characters are easier to put in the game at the start. Because people are more likely to buy somebody they know than somebody they don't know. And news of characters they know appearing later in the game's lifespan will invigorate the fans

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

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

I like it because it's interesting and different. Also makes it easier to have non-problematic individuals.

 

[Kyriakos]

She is the Ada Lovelace of lesbianism

Tbh I think that's a bit like saying that Einstein is the Rob Schneider of mustaches

 

[Patine]

Tbh I think that's a bit like saying that Einstein is the Rob Schneider of mustaches

I don't see any connection between the analogies, myself.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I don't see any connection between the analogies, myself.

It is admittedly an imperfect analogy, but probably the closest I can think of among the currently revealed leaders.