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

[Kyriakos]

I'm not sure, I think saying that the leader is representative of the focus and spirit of your people, and isn't actually an immortal god-emperor ruling with an iron fist for 6,000 years is pretty straightforward

Well then "your people" are not tied to a civ. You are trying to present the leader as having traits in the name of part of the civ, when the leader is not tied to a civ in the first place.
I should also remind that the subdiscussion was in the context of (people) trying to argue that the leader is not just one person - since if they were one person it would not be realistic for them to define what traits an entire civ has - and therefore we have on the one hand a gimmick in a leader who monolithically imposes traits on a civ (note: if they were historic rulers of the specific civ, at least they could be said to just be a figurehead for a specific state/period with that traits) and on the other a gimmick in a leader who is supposed to be promoting a group within the civ while by definition the leaders in Civ7 float from civ to civ.

Maybe we should express the incongruousness using sets ^^

 

[Krikkit1]

Well then "your people" are not tied to a civ.

Exactly

 

[Patine]

Justinian probably shouldn't be called incompetent as a commander, but given the pop history understanding of him as the man who re-conquered the Roman Empire, he wasn't exactly a great tactician.

But Justinian just sat at home in Constantinople, getting the new tax revenues, making laws, and betting on the chariot races. Belisarius, who WAS a very skilled commander, re-conquered much of the Western Roman Empire under Justinian's vexillum. The character Bel Riose from Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series is loosely based on him.

 

[Patine]

Imo it is too much of a gimmick. I think that it only exists to avoid the question of setting civ traits - and not wishing to be done with traits completely.
Of course it is a game, yet discussion of the mechanic - here with a specific floating deity for context - is perfectly valid.
If they wanted to have traits but not tie them to civs, they could have asked the player to select where to focus on - rpg powers-like. The civs could still have leaders - historical in that case.
I personally found the have-leaders-but-only-historical-ones angle to be a half-decent compromise, as then the excuse is that those traits are about specific people - when in reality they are of the civ as they belong to a historical period with known qualities.

I'm very sure there are other reasons the mechanic exists, whether you acknowledge them or not.

 

[Patine]

Well then "your people" are not tied to a civ. You are trying to present the leader as having traits in the name of part of the civ, when the leader is not tied to a civ in the first place.
I should also remind that the subdiscussion was in the context of (people) trying to argue that the leader is not just one person - since if they were one person it would not be realistic for them to define what traits an entire civ has - and therefore we have on the one hand a gimmick in a leader who monolithically imposes traits on a civ (note: if they were historic rulers of the specific civ, at least they could be said to just be a figurehead for a specific state/period with that traits) and on the other a gimmick in a leader who is supposed to be promoting a group within the civ while by definition the leaders in Civ7 float from civ to civ.

Maybe we should express the incongruousness using sets ^^

Here's a good quote for, to help with a lot of things that I've seen mystifying you here,

"Looking to apply linear logic and factual thinking from the world we live in - though it, too can get odd and inexplicable - to the medium of a fictional property is a fool's errand. Other worlds created of people's fertile imagination do not conform to those of our own, and that is fine, each in their demesne,"

Director and producer David Cronenberg, protege of the late David Lynch

You are the target demographic of this quote, Kyriakos!

 

[j51]

Leaders are either your opponents or your avatar in a digital board game where you/they also select civilizations that you/they lead. Both these leaders and civilizations have traits and abilities that reflect their in-real-life counterparts.

 

[seasnake]

This is the hard thing for long time players to understand: these are not leaders, they are players. You no longer lead a civilization, you play civilization the game as Ben Franklin/Machiavelli/Ada Lovelace. You’ll pick three civilizations as you attempt to win the game. The simulation experience is gone, completely, it’s just about playing a game. Hopefully a very fun one.

If you accept this they can put in anyone who tickles their fancy. It’s just another ai personality and bonus to compete against your chosen avatar. This has two side effects that people like: better inclusion of civs without written records (the Mississippi and Nazca for instance) and more diverse personalities, especially females who generally did not lead as leadership in until very recently was was tied to military prowess.

 

[ehecatzin]

The simulation experience is gone

The simulation experience took a new shape tho It's not gone. can't talk for other people, but at least for me it makes more sense to have a civilization evolve into a new iteration be it by historical links or geographical adaptation. I think it will be better with more civs and leaders added, because granted, It's very wonky right now for many regions.

Founding Washington in the ancient era was It's own flavour of weird simulation experience tbh. people were just more used to that one, despite being just as weird if not more.

 

[Zaarin]

Not to mention Civ was never a simulation; it was a history-flavored strategy game. IMO civ-switching is a step towards simulationism, not away from it.

 

[seasnake]

Not to mention Civ was never a simulation; it was a history-flavored strategy game. IMO civ-switching is a step towards simulationism, not away from it.

The line between history-flavored and simulation is about as thin as a sheet of paper. I think we've had this conversation before, but I could not disagree with you more that this game is a move towards simulation. I do not understand how unmooring the leaders from the civs is anything but a step away from simulation. Harriet Tubman leading the Greeks is a far cry from Pericles.

If every civ path was historically/ethnically related the idea of civ switching may not be so jarring, but we don't have that, at least today. If your issue is "immortal leaders" are not realistic, then the solution there is to create dynasties of leaders appropriately ethnic and with regional accurate names as avatars, ala Crusader Kings. Not this. If there is a problem with Washington being founded in 4,000 BC, is it more jarring than a map where Pataliputra is the most populous city in Spain? At least in other Civ games at some point of the game the city names and architecture will all be civ accurate when it corresponds to the actual historical period when that civ flourished.

To be clear, I do not dislike civ switching, nor the leader issue, nor many of the other changes made to the game. The overarching effort to address the biggest weakness in the game, aka making the modern era meaningful, is the right goal. But I do not understand the idea that any of these changes are a step toward simulation. Even if you just say it is merely "history-flavored" gameplay, the new flavor mixes in Civ 7 are like tossing jalapenos in a bowl of cinnamon oatmeal.

 

[Arcaian]

But Justinian just sat at home in Constantinople, getting the new tax revenues, making laws, and betting on the chariot races. Belisarius, who WAS a very skilled commander, re-conquered much of the Western Roman Empire under Justinian's vexillum. The character Bel Riose from Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series is loosely based on him.

That's part of my point - there are many examples in history of heads of state who delegated command of the army to better suited candidates, while they stayed at home and focused on their area of strength. Why can't we imagine that for someone focused on the sciences?

 

[RedCourtJester]

Not to mention Civ was never a simulation; it was a history-flavored strategy game. IMO civ-switching is a step towards simulationism, not away from it.

Eh I think the line is blurrier than that. Clearly there was some degree of simulationism with map starts, scenarios, and civs/leaders enduring anachronistically.

And as a matter of whether civ-switching and modular leaders is simulationism or simply gamifying certain aspects of the game that previously weren't...

I think at least for the past few installments, Civ has been pretty solidly both strategy game and "Sims Civs."

 

[King of Prussia]

Personally, i would prefer leaders in Civ to be Political leaders. They dont have to be heads of state. I thought great people were a good fit for the great scientists, mathematicians, etc,. They are a good way to add flavor, boost your civ, and expose you to people you may never of heard of.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Personally, i would prefer leaders in Civ to be Political leaders. They dont have to be heads of state. I thought great people were a good fit for the great scientists, mathematicians, etc,. They are a good way to add flavor, boost your civ, and expose you to people you may never of heard of.

By getting rid of the generic pool of great people, and making them civ specific, that definitely opened up the idea to having scientists, artists, writers, philosophers, merchants etc. to be leaders.

 

[GeneralZIft]

They should get unhinged and do a Super Smash Bros style 'Everyone is here' and include every person of moderate significance ever

You guys are not ready for LeBron James of Rome

 

[Thenewwwguy]

They should get unhinged and do a Super Smash Bros style 'Everyone is here' and include every person of moderate significance ever

You guys are not ready for LeBron James of Rome

he is king james, so by the logic of some ppl in this thread he’s more qualified than ibn battuta

 

[UWHabs]

They should get unhinged and do a Super Smash Bros style 'Everyone is here' and include every person of moderate significance ever

You guys are not ready for LeBron James of Rome

It is a little bit the equivalent of including the Wii Fit trainer in smash bros... Doesn't exactly fit the same style as everyone else, but once you open up the player list options, why not?

 

[Kyriakos]

Ι αμ ok with Giannis being the leader of Greece.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Ι αμ ok with Giannis being the leader of Greece.

i for one, welcome damian lillard as the leader of the cascadian civ

 

[Tcat246]

I just want to have Britain to have a "Pub" as one of their unique buildings