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

[AlexByrde]

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

It's a matter of time before we get someone like Michelangelo or Da Vinci as a leader

 

[Black Gate]

Wasn't Sacagawea a leader option in Civ 2? She was no political leader, either. So none of these arguments are new to Civ 7--they've been going on since the franchise began.

Civ2 gets a "pass" to this kind of mindset because firstly, most people haven't ever played it (it's thirty years old after all). On top of that if you're going to dispute its leaders you'd probably start with the properly ahistorical Shakala or Amaterasu - which were strange choices when they opted to leave a few civs without female leaders anyway.

That aside, I don't think the concept of a leader/civ "deserving" to be in the game has ever been how Firaxis picks things. They go for interesting people and cultures that the fans will find fun and that they can make interesting gameplay mechanics out of. Instead of appealing to "this civ had X million sqkm under their control" or "Y leader won so many great battles" you'd probably be better off appealing to the lurking devs just by showing some enthusiasm for an option or some different mechanics. That's why I bring up Enheduanna and Heian Japan all the time, I think they'd be fun and hope the devs agree.

 

[Xyael]

She is the best possible choice.

 

[Leyrann]

today we learned that Ada Lovelace has been chosen as the leader for Great Britain.

Right, I've read enough. You don't understand the design philosophy of the game.

Say it with me:

Leaders. Are. Not. Tied. To. Civilizations. In. Civ. Seven.

 

[Metecury]

MACHIAVELLI blew open the door, not Tubman.

Why is Tubman -someone who fought all her life- such an OMG SO WEIRD choice, when Machiavelli got in on the basis of writing a lovefest on Cesare Borgia?

What a ridiculous take. Machiaveli is one of the most prominent thinkers in the realist school of thought of international relations which is very much at the forefront of international politics today.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I really think people just need to loosen up. It's a fantasy alternate history game that has always had an intentional streak of silliness. All the angst over specific choices just doesn't make sense, "a achieved far more than b", "x was only an explorer, not a ruler!" etc. It doesn't matter, just enjoy it.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

Call me a grognard, but I find the leader picks a little lackluster. I think leaving out the traditional head-of-state Civ-characters gives the game a less "game-of-throney-high-politics" feeling and lends more towards something I really can't relate to, something a little silly. Ada Lovelace of Great Britain? Just tell us straight that a DLC containing Victoria or Elizabeth will arrive in the future. My hope (and I guess sour feeling) is that all these historical leaders will arrive eventually, as paid DLC. I believe this is the main reason they are including all these weird picks in vanilla civ7.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Think it’s silly making these arguments over singular individuals. What is good about the leader picks is the overall spread of them. Like that there is a mix of well known and unknown. Traditional leaders and people who stood out in other areas.
I appreciate occasionally getting prompted to learn more about history.

I like that England/Great Britain has a female leader but we have had Vicky and Beth enough. Ada is an interesting choice. Next time Thatcher

 

[8housesofelixir]

I am in the camp of "leaders would better be political adjacent." Thus, I welcome Machiavelli, Confucius, Ibn Battuta, and Tubman, etc.

• Machiavelli was not some random Italian who wrote just witty essays about amoral politics. He held important offices in the Republic of Florence, effectively being the Foreign Minister and the Defense Minister of a powerful Italian city-state, organized a citizen militia and won a war. He only began to write witty essays after he fell from the power.
• Confucius was also not a random philosopher who just repeated "moral values supreme." He was the Justice Minister of the state of Lu and also acted as the Prime Minister for a while, pushed forward administrative reforms, and was very savvy in diplomacy. Similar to Machiavelli, he only began to teach philosophy after he resigned from the office.
• Ibn Battuta, as I mentioned elsewhere on the forum, held various important court positions during his travel, and served as a diplomat from time to time. In modern terms, he belongs to the class of cosmopolitan executives and could get important positions in different companies (nations) across the Islamic World.
• Much ink has been spilled on Tubman, so I'll just stop there. She might be kind of a stretch (and personally, I prefer Frederick Douglass for the role), but a political activist is still indeed politically adjacent (not to say her military experiences).

Now, Ada Lovelace is undoubtedly not very political adjacent. But I was aware of her as an important computer scientist long before I was aware of the Civ series, and I welcome if FXS devs decided to have great scientists as leaders. These figures are, indeed, leaders in their own right. This is also where the leaders are completely detached from Civs; science has no borders - imagine having Nicolaus Copernicus as a leader down the road and what kind of discussions will arise around him.

I guess people are more or less dissatisfied because they naturally tie Ada Lovelace to the British civ. If FXS announced a more "traditional" UK leader for now, and keeping Ada for a future DLC, that might cancel out some of the negativity by giving people more choices. But it is what it is, and different people draw the line differently. I just look forward to new changes.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

If anything, my main grip against Ada Lovelace is that she's taking the "polymath woman" slot, which would be, IMO, filled much better by Hildegard von Bingen as a female leader with science bonuses. Both were excellent in their lines of work, avant-garde even, truly some of the most brillant minds of their respective generations, and both kinda invented new languages. The slight advantage of Hildegard would be that she was an actual leader in a way: leading a nunnery or an abbey, in those times, was also, in a way, being a political, economic and diplomatic position.

So, yeah, the presence of Ada Lovelace doesn't pleases me as much, but not because I'd replace her with Babbage, Darwin or Newton, or any other scientist, but because it slims down even more the probability of having dear Hildegard in the roaster.

But apart from this slight grip, I'm terribly curious about her. I really like her look and fashion (she's wonderfully steampunk and I like this vibe), she's a great person worthy of inclusion in her own right, and apparently she'll have abilities tied to things often overlooked, so I'm really, really curious (it probably won't be a mere "production on science building" or things like that... well, I hope).

 

[UWHabs]

I am in the camp of "leaders would better be political adjacent." Thus, I welcome Machiavelli, Confucius, Ibn Battuta, and Tubman, etc.

• Machiavelli was not some random Italian who wrote just witty essays about amoral politics. He held important offices in the Republic of Florence, effectively being the Foreign Minister and the Defense Minister of a powerful Italian city-state, organized a citizen militia and won a war. He only began to write witty essays after he fell from the power.
• Confucius was also not a random philosopher who just repeated "moral values supreme." He was the Justice Minister of the state of Lu and also acted as the Prime Minister for a while, pushed forward administrative reforms, and was very savvy in diplomacy. Similar to Machiavelli, he only began to teach philosophy after he resigned from the office.
• Ibn Battuta, as I mentioned elsewhere on the forum, held various important court positions during his travel, and served as a diplomat from time to time. In modern terms, he belongs to the class of cosmopolitan executives and could get important positions in different companies (nations) across the Islamic World.
• Much ink has been spilled on Tubman, so I'll just stop there. She might be kind of a stretch (and personally, I prefer Frederick Douglass for the role), but a political activist is still indeed politically adjacent (not to say her military experiences).

Now, Ada Lovelace is undoubtedly not very political adjacent. But I was aware of her as an important computer scientist long before I was aware of the Civ series, and I welcome if FXS devs decided to have great scientists as leaders. These figures are, indeed, leaders in their own right. This is also where the leaders are completely detached from Civs; science has no borders - imagine having Nicolaus Copernicus as a leader down the road and what kind of discussions will arise around him.

I guess people are more or less dissatisfied because they naturally tie Ada Lovelace to the British civ. If FXS announced a more "traditional" UK leader for now, and keeping Ada for a future DLC, that might cancel out some of the negativity by giving people more choices. But it is what it is, and different people draw the line differently. I just look forward to new changes.

The way they're branching out, I almost feel like it might be better for the game if you could like choose 2 leaders - you get one ruler, and one "advisor" for your empire. Obviously it would give them twice the work in crafting leaders, but it would let you opt for a "traditional" ruler (Victoria, Napoleon, Frederick, etc), but then you could also have like Ibn or Ada or Machiavelli or Confucius as like a second leader for your empire.

I like branching out beyond the traditional staples, and I do think it's good to highlight people like Ada Lovelace who most people have not heard of, but deserves more recognition in the world. But at the same time, obviously the further out from the political arenas you go, the more the choices do draw ire.

 

[trev1972]

I think the choice is 'ok' , but would not have been my personal choice Moderator Action: *SNIP* Let's not go there please. -lymond

I do think that if you are going to pick a British scientist as a leader then there are more important and well known British scientists that could have been chosen, the person stating ada lovelace is 'well known' to the public is also in my opinion wrong. If you ask the average joe 'who was Ada Lovelace' they wouldn't have any idea.

However does it have to be the most important scientist, or just an important one with an interesting history? If it just needs to be an important scientist that is interesting choice then that makes the choice fine.
If we were going with scientists, and not going for the obvious one (Newton) then i think Turing would be an interesting choice personally.


I think there will be more British leaders released anyway

 

[trev1972]

I really think people just need to loosen up. It's a fantasy alternate history game that has always had an intentional streak of silliness. All the angst over specific choices just doesn't make sense, "a achieved far more than b", "x was only an explorer, not a ruler!" etc. It doesn't matter, just enjoy it.

No it doesnt matter, but i dont think anyone is actually stressed about it? I am not seeing angst, just people discussing if it is a good choice.

Its just something to discuss about the game, while everyone understands it isnt actually important to our lives?

 

[beorn]

Just my opinion, but I think the question is missing a shift in meaning of leader in Civ.

When Gorgo leads Greece in Civ 6, she is the leader of the country, the head of government. So it would be silly to have a scientist or trader in that role. In a sense, this entire system is silly anyway because I am leading Greece in Civ 6. Gorgo is really just a set of bonuses I get.

Civ 7 seems to made all this a bit more realistic. Your people are first an antiquity age civ, later an exploration age civ, then a modern age civ. And the game tacitly admits that you are making the governmental decisions -- with government itself being nudged a bit into the background. But your people do have a national spirit that lasts through the ages, and that is personified by the animating force of a "leader." Who might have been a governmental leader (Friedrich, Catherine), might have been loosely associated with running a country but not a leader (Confucius, Machiavelli) or totally apart from government (Ibn Battuta, Lovelace).

It will be great if this works. But to make it work, they will have to be bold about this spirit being rather vivid and unique. Of course, I haven't played the game yet, but it looks to me like they have it right in Machiavelli. A civ in his spirit is going to be different and interesting, both to play and to play against.

Yesterday, they said they have something very specific and different in mind for Lovelace, so we will see. After all, it wasn't that she stood out among the best mathemicians of her day, but rather her insight into future applications of a new technology that marks her out. But if they can turn that into an interesting national spirit, personally I am in favor.

 

[Calico Jack]

A poor choice of leader, I think. Plenty of better options.Emmeline Pankhurst, Isembard Kingdom Brunel, Charles Darwin, Clement Atlee, Horatio Nelson...I could go on.

It's not the absolute worst choice for our representation, but it does come across as a choice made after a lot of better-suited figures were passed over.

 

[Archanist]

I'm cautiously optimistic about her being in the game, and while I think there may be other characters that can better fill her niche (Hildegard was mentioned as a woman polymath and TIL about her, and I personally think Turing as an early, british computer scientist can more easily fit gameplay mechanics with counterspying, and other suggestions people brought up like Newton), I'll wait to see what they have in store and I want to see them cook really well, especially to show off that yes, Ada Lovelace is definitely the correct choice over others. If not, oh well

I also know her because she comes up when studying Computer Science history, and while she's very well known in that field, I think she's a good stepping stone for laypeople to learn about early computing, and she's a good representation about how heavily woman dominated computing and computer science was early on in the west (especially during WW2).

No it doesnt matter, but i dont think anyone is actually stressed about it? I am not seeing angst, just people discussing if it is a good choice.

Its just something to discuss about the game, while everyone understands it isnt actually important to our lives?

A lot of arguments I've seen here I can take in good faith, but there are some people who really do seem really affected, even going down to call her a prostitute.

 

[trev1972]

I'm cautiously optimistic about her being in the game, and while I think there may be other characters that can better fill her niche (Hildegard was mentioned as a woman polymath and TIL about her, and I personally think Turing as an early, british computer scientist can more easily fit gameplay mechanics with counterspying, and other suggestions people brought up like Newton), I'll wait to see what they have in store and I want to see them cook really well, especially to show off that yes, Ada Lovelace is definitely the correct choice over others. If not, oh well

I also know her because she comes up when studying Computer Science history, and while she's very well known in that field, I think she's a good stepping stone for laypeople to learn about early computing, and she's a good representation about how heavily woman dominated computing and computer science was early on in the west (especially during WW2).


A lot of arguments I've seen here I can take in good faith, but there are some people who really do seem really affected, even going down to call her a prostitute.

You make a good point that it is a chance for people to learn more. And well, i felt disappointment at the gaming choices made but - yeh it is just a game and my life wont end if i dont end up buying this one

 

[Evie]

Just my opinion, but I think the question is missing a shift in meaning of leader in Civ.

When Gorgo leads Greece in Civ 6, she is the leader of the country, the head of government. So it would be silly to have a scientist or trader in that role. In a sense, this entire system is silly anyway because I am leading Greece in Civ 6. Gorgo is really just a set of bonuses I get.

Civ 7 seems to made all this a bit more realistic. Your people are first an antiquity age civ, later an exploration age civ, then a modern age civ. And the game tacitly admits that you are making the governmental decisions -- with government itself being nudged a bit into the background. But your people do have a national spirit that lasts through the ages, and that is personified by the animating force of a "leader." Who might have been a governmental leader (Friedrich, Catherine), might have been loosely associated with running a country but not a leader (Confucius, Machiavelli) or totally apart from government (Ibn Battuta, Lovelace).

It will be great if this works. But to make it work, they will have to be bold about this spirit being rather vivid and unique. Of course, I haven't played the game yet, but it looks to me like they have it right in Machiavelli. A civ in his spirit is going to be different and interesting, both to play and to play against.

Yesterday, they said they have something very specific and different in mind for Lovelace, so we will see. After all, it wasn't that she stood out among the best mathemicians of her day, but rather her insight into future applications of a new technology that marks her out. But if they can turn that into an interesting national spirit, personally I am in favor.

I don't see it as a shift. For me that's always been the place of the leader in Civ - some kind of Founder or Cultural Hero or Great Figure that maybe lived and inspired and guided the civ at some early point, but who now exist as some kind of spirit presence in the cultural zeitgeist of the civ, a symbol of who the country is and aspire to be that is recognized worldwide as emblematic of the civilization - not a real immortal person who's around for 6000 years. It was, to me, the only way to make sense of the Immortal Leader conundrum - of course leaders are not immortal!

(Think of how Washington only lived in the 1700s, but remain a super-influential figure who still heavily impacts the actions and ways of viewing the world of Americans in 1990 and even 2020!).

So to me this is not a change but a solidifying of a past vision.

 

[Oberst Kraft]

You don't understand the design philosophy of the game.

Say it with me:

Leaders. Are. Not. Tied. To. Civilizations. In. Civ. Seven.

Agreed, in terms of a purely mechanical connection. But it's not like the leaders aren't tied to "their" civilizations at all.
They are there because:
1. they unlock specific civilizations (not everyone - yet - especially those from the Antiquity Age),
2. they are often presented simultaneously with the presentation of the civilization associated with them (e.g. Friedrich and Prussia yesterday),
3. it is common to perceive every leader as associated with some civilization or civilizations.
It is safest to look at the proposed leaders as the developer's designated choice for a given civilization.

 

[Evie]

I moderately disagree with point 1 (unlocking a civilization is a minor effect that can be achieved in a variety of way, and not all of them indicate a strong connection (Mayas unlock Incas, remember?), and some civs have no leader unlock (see: Buganda)
I completely agree with point 2 - the pairing of leaders with civilizations in the marketing material does carry the perception that they are associated with one another.
I think point 3 is correct but the heart of the problem, because it represent a rejection of a clear change in design priorities.

I completely disagree with the conclusion: it is not "safest to look at the proposed leaders as the developer's designated choices for a given civilization". That's simply superimposing past perceptions of the game onto the modern game. The developers obviously don't think Amina of Zazzau is a great leader of Songhai (which would be wrong by nearly a thousand kilometer), but she nonetheless unlock Songhai because of geographic proximity. All an unlock represent is that there is some connection, geographic or cultural or social or otherwise, between that person (or that civ) and the civ they unlock. Not that they are the natural historical leader (or precursor) of that civ.

People reading *far* more into those connections than the game implies (because they superimpose their idea of what civ was in the past over what it is now) is one of the most common form of errant argumentation on this forum.