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

[RedCourtJester]

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

I feel like that would more likely go to Ireland, if we are factoring in global impact. St. Patrick's Day is not only celebrated in many countries you would expect to given Irish diasporas, but also Mexico, Argentina, Japan, Korea, Indonesia......

They may not have invented the pub, but they sure claimed it.

 

[thecrazyscot]

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

If there's a Pub building it simply must be Irish.

Ability something something about placing Irish Pubs in other civs' cities and gaining influence from them!

 

[Tcat246]

I feel like that would more likely go to Ireland, if we are factoring in global impact. St. Patrick's Day is not only celebrated in many countries you would expect to given Irish diasporas, but also Mexico, Argentina, Japan, Korea, Indonesia......

They may not have invented the pub, but they sure claimed it.

If there's a Pub building it simply must be Irish.

Ability something something about placing Irish Pubs in other civs' cities and gaining influence from them!

If they do add Ireland to the game, I would be so excited! Add the Guinness factory as the Wonder lol. I would love an Irish Civ, the music alone excites me

 

[Askia Muhammad]

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.

Good thing she’s leading Egypt for me

 

[trev1972]

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.

I watched a couple of livestream segments today, i watched them picking their initial leader and their age change new civ purely based on the bonuses / numbers
It certainly drove home your point.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I watched a couple of livestream segments today, i watched them picking their initial leader and their age change new civ purely based on the bonuses / numbers

Is this not how you've always played? This a genuinely question, I'm honestly curious to hear your perspective. If I picked Bull Moose Teddy's America in Civ VI, it wasn't because I wanted to pretend to be the United Staes, it was because I wanted to play around with Appeal and National Parks. Stories would come about as a result of my civ's aesthetics, boni, and the events of that unique game, but in my mind that's always been something that happens naturally as I play, rather than a factor in my initial civ selection or even my gameplay choices in the early to mid game. How do you approach a game of Civ from a narrative standpoint?

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

If there's a Pub building it simply must be Irish.

Ability something something about placing Irish Pubs in other civs' cities and gaining influence from them!

This is on the same level as the Scotland civ having golf courses.

 

[Patine]

This is on the same level as the Scotland civ having golf courses.

Or Canada getting hockey rinks.

 

[bladex1200]

Is this not how you've always played? This a genuinely question, I'm honestly curious to hear your perspective. If I picked Bull Moose Teddy's America in Civ VI, it wasn't because I wanted to pretend to be the United Staes, it was because I wanted to play around with Appeal and National Parks. Stories would come about as a result of my civ's aesthetics, boni, and the events of that unique game, but in my mind that's always been something that happens naturally as I play, rather than a factor in my initial civ selection or even my gameplay choices in the early to mid game. How do you approach a game of Civ from a narrative standpoint?

I think quite a few players, myself included, have picked leaders based on wanting to some degree to "pretend" to be various countries. I did this a lot when I was younger and not really playing Civ optimally with full knowledge of the mechanics (started on Civ 3). Civ has always attracted quite a variety of players, and players who "play pretend" narratively - even as inaccurate and ahistorical as the basic premise of the game is - are probably stung by how much Civ VI and VII really lean into the series being fundamentally a board game.

It's why you'll see comments about how there's too much urban area and not enough farmland with these further-unstacked cities needing urban buildings to take up tile space. That's not something that really has anything to do with gameplay, it's purely that the aesthetic reminds the player of playing a game, and not watching a little simulation of another world. It's why some folks OOed and AWWed at Ara and Humankind having little animated people walking around on the map.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I think quite a few players, myself included, have picked leaders based on wanting to some degree to "pretend" to be various countries. I did this a lot when I was younger and not really playing Civ optimally with full knowledge of the mechanics (started on Civ 3). Civ has always attracted quite a variety of players, and players who "play pretend" narratively - even as inaccurate and ahistorical as the basic premise of the game is - are probably stung by how much Civ VI and VII really lean into the series being fundamentally a board game.

It's why you'll see comments about how there's too much urban area and not enough farmland with these further-unstacked cities needing urban buildings to take up tile space. That's not something that really has anything to do with gameplay, it's purely that the aesthetic reminds the player of playing a game, and not watching a little simulation of another world. It's why some folks OOed and AWWed at Ara and Humankind having little animated people walking around on the map.

I appreciate the explanation! I'll admit that I first experienced the series through VI, so my narrative experience with the game has always come from looking back and rationalizing the history I've built while tending to "play the board game" in the moment, which is why the mechanics of Civ VII have appealed to my storytelling sensibilities rather than scorned them.

 

[bladex1200]

And to clarify my earlier comment, I am fully supportive of having Ada Lovelace being a leader in the game, I think that a way that civ could've avoided a lot of backlash from "play pretend" players was having all these non-governmental leaders appear as advisors or other such notables providing bonuses to a government leader (e.g. Lovelace as your science advisor option while you play as a government leader like Victoria or Elizabeth I).

Given that is not the direction they opted to go, Ada Lovelace is an important British figure and perfectly in-line with putting folks like Ibn Battuta and Benjamin Franklin into the game. I think she's probably the most "out there" leader choice in that she has no direct connection to politics or exploration insofar as her lasting contributions, but I would also welcome more scientists, scholars, and notable private citizens (artists, writers, etc) as leader options in this game.

 

[GeneralZIft]

This is on the same level as the Scotland civ having golf courses.

We need the Shisha cafes asap. +2 gold, +1 happiness

 

[bladex1200]

I appreciate the explanation! I'll admit that I first experienced the series through VI, so my narrative experience with the game has always come from looking back and rationalizing the history I've built while tending to "play the board game" in the moment, which is why the mechanics of Civ VII have appealed to my storytelling sensibilities rather than scorned them.

Not to get too off-topic, but I did want to comment on my experiences as a series regular and someone who still fancies himself a "play pretend"er as opposed to a mechanically-inclined player, although as I've gotten older I've come to appreciate that the Civilization games are mechanical board games first and that any simulation is window-dressing.

I think one of the big issues is that earlier entries like III and IV lacked the mechanical complexity that creates discord between the civilization you think you are building narratively and the game you're playing turn-by-turn. In Civ V the presence of the museum slotting mini-game and trade route management (carried over to VI), and in VI and VII the turn-by-turn flexibility of government policies make you consciously aware that you are micro-managing a board game and not building an empire.

In Civ IV, you didn't control trade routes, they were auto-calculated based on where you chose to place cities. Government swaps in III and IV were HUGE events that happened only a few times a game due to anarchy turns, and timing your government swap was a big part of your early-game strategy. Culture was just a resource that accumulated from buildings, you didn't have to micro-manage filling a bunch of cultural buildings with special artifacts to maximize tourism bonuses. In a lot of ways, the turn-by-turn gameplay was actually a lot blander and the nuance was in movement + improvement micro or pop-whipping, which a lot of players mastered the numbers for and then would tune-out consciously as they played. So your thoughts generally dwelled on the macro for most of the game, since the turn-by-turn micro wasn't that overwhelming unless you played a gigantic map.

Civ VI and VII, and to an extent parts of Civ V, began the series obsession with making each individual turn have a huge number of conscious decisions to make. It makes for very fun gameplay, but keeps your mind focused on the fact you are in fact playing a game. And I don't know how to explain why that is distasteful to me, but I do feel that is probably what gives play-pretenders discomfort despite the fact they're playing games that are fun and well-designed.

 

[trev1972]

Is this not how you've always played? This a genuinely question, I'm honestly curious to hear your perspective. If I picked Bull Moose Teddy's America in Civ VI, it wasn't because I wanted to pretend to be the United Staes, it was because I wanted to play around with Appeal and National Parks. Stories would come about as a result of my civ's aesthetics, boni, and the events of that unique game, but in my mind that's always been something that happens naturally as I play, rather than a factor in my initial civ selection or even my gameplay choices in the early to mid game. How do you approach a game of Civ from a narrative standpoint?

Nope I picked a civ because I wanted to play them as a civ. From civ 1 to 5 I won at least one game with every civ, but played my own nation more than any of the others.

I would try to use the civs bonuses and uniques but that was never my reason to play them.

It was about rewriting that countries history in a giant sandbox. Yes I know USA in the stone age was silly, but civ 6 was the first time that I found it hard to see the game as a sandbox instead of board game

 

[trev1972]

Some of the above posts make very good points, and I fully accept the 'historical simulator' veneer was always thin. Heck I started with civ 1 and you really did lose tanks to spearmen

But it was enough of a veneer for me, I tended to download the tsl maps as soon as they were available and lost hundreds of hours on the earth based scenarios

The comments about being reminded you are playing a board game ring true as well. It's been a while since I played civ to be honest, but I remember hating the world congress for that reason.

Having said all that, I get that I am probably in a tiny minority of players. Gaming moves on at the end of the day

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Some of the above posts make very good points, and I fully accept the 'historical simulator' veneer was always thin. Heck I started with civ 1 and you really did lose tanks to spearmen

But it was enough of a veneer for me, I tended to download the tsl maps as soon as they were available and lost hundreds of hours on the earth based scenarios

I also liked the gumph that people see as pointless from the very early games, the big wonder movies, building my palace, and yes I liked the advisory council

The comments about being reminded you are playing a board game ring true as well. It's been a while since I played civ to be honest, but I remember hating the world congress for that reason.

Having said all that, I get that I am probably in a tiny minority of players. Gaming moves on at the end of the day

I don't think this actually is that much of a minority position, I think its just a more common position for a casual player to have than a fanatic.

Everyone I know who plays civ but isn't passionate enough about it to follow on forums isn't interested in min maxing, yield porn or any of the other board games bits of civ - to them it's a slightly wackily premised (stone age america, nuclear gandhi) but seriously enacted alt history sandbox. Of the 17 people in my steam friends list with civ 5 or 6, only 2 are actually interested in civ 7.

Perhaps that's an extreme example, but I don't think this position is particularly rare

 

[trev1972]

I don't think this actually is that much of a minority position, I think its just a more common position for a casual player to have than a fanatic.

Everyone I know who plays civ but isn't passionate enough about it to follow on forums isn't interested in min maxing, yield porn or any of the other board games bits of civ - to them it's a slightly wackily premised (stone age america, nuclear gandhi) but seriously enacted alt history sandbox. Of the 17 people in my steam friends list with civ 5 or 6, only 2 are actually interested in civ 7.

Perhaps that's an extreme example, but I don't think this position is particularly rare

You may be right, I have played thousands of hours, but I am still a casual and I definitely focus on the big picture when playing instead of min maxing.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Is this not how you've always played? This a genuinely question, I'm honestly curious to hear your perspective. If I picked Bull Moose Teddy's America in Civ VI, it wasn't because I wanted to pretend to be the United Staes, it was because I wanted to play around with Appeal and National Parks.

No that's not how many people play. Many of us literally like to play and "pretend" to be the United States and base alot of our choices from laws, civics, policies, what civs we're facing on the map, etc, on which civ we're leading. I have never picked a civilization/leader specifically for its abilities or bonuses (outside of like maybe Venice in Civ V and that was simply to try out its very unique playstyle once) and while I can beat higher level difficulties, I generally don't play to min-max

 

[bladex1200]

No that's not how many people play. Many of us literally like to play and pretend to be the United States and base alot of our choices from laws, civics, policies, etc, on which civ we're leading. I have never picked a civilization/leader specifically for its abilities or bonuses (outside of like maybe Venice in Civ V and that was simply to try it out once)

I will say this makes Ada a good choice for someone RPing as Industrial Revolution-era Britain or Europe, assuming her bonuses are science-related, since she'd sit in the era when the steam locomotive was coming up. Plus as she's dressed to the nines in late-Regency dress (look at the frills!), you could squint and she'd look like Victoria's Regency-era counterpart.

It's also why I don't really have an issue with Harriet Tubman. Makes for a great LARP of Civil War era America (I assume that's either late-exploration or early-contemporary era)

 

[TheGrayFox]

I will say this makes Ada a good choice for someone RPing as Industrial Revolution-era Britain or Europe, assuming her bonuses are science-related, since she'd sit in the era when the steam locomotive was coming up. Plus as she's dressed to the nines in late-Regency dress (look at the frills!), you could squint and she'd look like Victoria's Regency-era counterpart.

It's also why I don't really have an issue with Harriet Tubman. Makes for a great LARP of Civil War era America (I assume that's either late-exploration or early-contemporary era)

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think a scientist should be leading the British Empire as a figure head in a game about expanding, exterminating, exploiting, and exploring other civilizations and an escaped slave leading a US themed only to the 1960s in a game about imperialism doesn't sit well with me either. I also don't think her leader abilities reflect the US or Civil war that well imo