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

[notNamed]

IDK, I'm also in the camp of politically-adjacent leaders over pure civilians since whatever these people may have been, the game requires them to show their character through a political strategy and a bunch of lines and expressions done during political events.

Ada Lovelace will have to sue for peace, declare war, request trade deals in-character, which is definitely much easier for people whose life revolved around this.
"Your days are counted!" "Okay, I admit my calculations were off." etc.
Or a more serious set for a Victorian noblewoman, which probably loses a lot of the character and reason for her inclusion, but obviously comes off less of a parody.

 

[Oberst Kraft]

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.

You didn't quite understand me. I should be more precise:
It is safest to look at the proposed leaders as the developer's designated choice for a given civilization in the game.
I didn't mean that the developers chose a given leader as a natural fit for a given civilization in history, but as one available in the game that they felt was best associated with a given available civilization in the game.

Take a look at the graphic from devs stream.

 

[Evie]

Well, I see that as marketing material more than representing how the Devs viewed Ahsoka, so there's that (and marketing - very wrongly - assumed that because they're all India it was a sensible historical path, which as we all know, didn't quite work out.

I don't think the devs approached this with "Okay, we need leaders for each of our civs". My impression is that they looked for leaders they thought would be interesting to have, and then tried to think of "okay, which leader make the most sense unlocking which civ" (the same as they approached the civ design - they didn't start with paths, they started with interesting civs they wanted to have and then figured out how least terribly to connect them).

 

[beorn]

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.

Fair enough. But I think that this vision has become a lot more solid, and that as a result there's less of a need to make it a governmental leader.

A nation's spirit can be encapsulated by a Lincoln, but also by a John Locke or Charles Darwin. Who need not even have been of that nationality.

(But I suspect that they will continue to shy away from some obvious choices that could bring down fury over how to depict the spirit of that person.)

Anyway, it seems to me that Ada Lovelace could be a very interesting choice in this regard (or, of course, she could end up coming across as imply filling out a sort of quota that annoys a fair number of people). But the comments the devs made during the live stream make me optimistic.

 

[Oberst Kraft]

they started with interesting civs they wanted to have and then figured out how least terribly to connect them).

100% agree

 

[CivKirk64]

Why is anyone writing this person? Why am I? I feel like piling on.
We are going to get more leaders as time goes on. Lovelace is a great choice for a science leader, her contemporaries that wrote to diminish her contributions did it because she was a woman acting "outside her station" her legacy has been re-established and strengthened over time. People argue was she or was she not the first programer , and I'll just say that there is no "first" anything someone's always had an aspect or fraction of an idea before the landmark, it doens't diminish i Her inclusion doesn't prevent others from appearing down the road. I really wanted Nelson and, heck even Vicky back, but I'm glad they are taking bold choices.

You can be wrong about reading too much into it, if you want the game to stay the same forever go play civ V again it won't ever change, and just get over it.

 

[trev1972]

Why is anyone writing this person? Why am I? I feel like piling on.
We are going to get more leaders as time goes on. Lovelace is a great choice for a science leader, her contemporaries that wrote to diminish her contributions did it because she was a woman acting "outside her station" her legacy has been re-established and strengthened over time. People argue was she or was she not the first programer , and I'll just say that there is no "first" anything someone's always had an aspect or fraction of an idea before the landmark, it doens't diminish i Her inclusion doesn't prevent others from appearing down the road. I really wanted Nelson and, heck even Vicky back, but I'm glad they are taking bold choices.

You can be wrong about reading too much into it, if you want the game to stay the same forever go play civ V again it won't ever change, and just get over it.

One good thing about picking her from my perspective is i did choose to watch a bbc documentary on her last night as although i had heard of her and knew she worked with Babbage- i didn't know a lot about her other than a vague memory about controversy regarding her achievements.

Yes there will possibly be more British leaders eventually. I agree its nice to have a change from Victoria and Elizabeth as well

 

[Uberfrog]

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.

Why can’t we have both? There is nothing saying we can’t.

I mean, we already have Lafayette, Napoléon and soon Bolívar in the “revolutionary man” slot and that doesn’t seem to have mattered.

 

[DeutschDachs]

I am kind of bummed at the overall leader philosophy for Civ 7. I would greatly prefer sticking to political and military leaders for Civs especially when nations such as England have so many that have yet to be used throughout series history. I keep hoping for a more medieval English leader such as Henry II. Maybe someday. I really thought the series was moving in a good direction by introducing actual Indian leaders such as Ashoka and Chandragupta instead of Gandhi (though he is a series staple at this point). I remember Indian CivFanatics feeling very unhappy with their representation being Gandhi so it seemed like a good course correction. Feels like kind of a step backwards now with Confucius, Machiavelli, etc.

I thought introducing Great People to encompass the other great minds of the world was great and would've preferred updated unique 3d models for each to really give people like Einstein, Socrates, Lovelace, etc. more definition than them all looking the same.

Overall it's not a big deal because they're still interesting people to learn more about who will lend themselves to unique game mechanics well, I think we all just have our own personal lists of leaders we'd like to see in Civ someday so it can be a little disappointing when they pick another leader from the same place reducing your picks' odds

 

[Phrozen]

I am kind of bummed at the overall leader philosophy for Civ 7. I would greatly prefer sticking to political and military leaders for Civs especially when nations such as England have so many that have yet to be used throughout series history. I keep hoping for a more medieval English leader such as Henry II. Maybe someday. I really thought the series was moving in a good direction by introducing actual Indian leaders such as Ashoka and Chandragupta instead of Gandhi (though he is a series staple at this point). I remember Indian CivFanatics feeling very unhappy with their representation being Gandhi so it seemed like a good course correction. Feels like kind of a step backwards now with Confucius, Machiavelli, etc.

I thought introducing Great People to encompass the other great minds of the world was great and would've preferred updated unique 3d models for each to really give people like Einstein, Socrates, Lovelace, etc. more definition than them all looking the same.

Overall it's not a big deal because they're still interesting people to learn more about who will lend themselves to unique game mechanics well, I think we all just have our own personal lists of leaders we'd like to see in Civ someday so it can be a little disappointing when they pick another leader from the same place reducing your picks' odds

I don't mind having leaders that are emblematic of a civilization even without being leader of the whole thing. The only problem I have with Tubman is that I would of preferred Frederick Douglass but I do think she is fairly emblematic of the US and she fits the spy archetype that they were looking for. As for Lovelace, I know they wanted a scientific leader but I think Mary Wollstonecraft would of been a better choice.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

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.

so she is well known in the history of computer science. that is fair. Bu

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.

the silly leader choices just make the game less serious, not more fun. totally agree with you. the feeling of making more and more absurd leader choices just takes away from the immersion of the game.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

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

newton would have been the obvious choice if they really wanted to go scientific. i wonder why they picked Ada instead?

 

[Zaarin]

the silly leader choices just make the game less serious, not more fun.

Civ5 is the only aberrant entry in the game that has taken itself so dead seriously. It's in complete dissonance with the franchise, but it's also where a lot of people got their start and don't realize Civ5's grimdark was an outlier, not a representative of the Civ franchise as a whole. Also, what constitutes a "silly" choice? That strikes me as extremely subjective. I nominate Augustus and Napoleon for the most deserving of the title.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

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.

so if i do not want to play Ada and i want to play GB, my best option is Napoleon or Ben Franklin. it reduces my immersion in the game. Every Civ should have a LEADER, not some figure that the current trend it is to celebrate and advance due to the current culture of celebrating subaltern groups.

 

[ehecatzin]

Just wanted to add that I don't think people advocating about figures being "well known" to the average public is a metric the devs share. They are always talking about historical figures that they find interesting and relevant for the niches they want to portray. If we are only going to be adding leaders by the lowest common denominator there will never be space to present anything new.

I think the average civ player that gets presented with a historical figure they don't know will at least get an itch to learn more about him/her, and that's really good.

 

[Acken]

the silly leader choices just make the game less serious, not more fun. totally agree with you. the feeling of making more and more absurd leader choices just takes away from the immersion of the game.

Civ7 is clearly going further into the "What if" historical fantasy genre than ever before. That's not news.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

Civ5 is the only aberrant entry in the game that has taken itself so dead seriously. It's in complete dissonance with the franchise, but it's also where a lot of people got their start and don't realize Civ5's grimdark was an outlier, not a representative of the Civ franchise as a whole. Also, what constitutes a "silly" choice? That strikes me as extremely subjective. I nominate Augustus and Napoleon for the most deserving of the title.

i did actually start with civ 5. i understand that the game is supposed to have a streak of lightheartedness and that makes the game more fun. and i admit it would be difficult to determine who is and is not a "silly" choice. I do admit I'm not sure why you think Augustus is a silly choice though.

 

[Zaarin]

I do admit I'm not sure why you think Augustus is a silly choice though.

He's been in the game repeatedly. He's boring. Rome had dozens of other emperors and hundreds of non-emperors. He's the poster child of how tame and uninspired many of Civ7's leader choices have been. (I get that it's to offset civ switching and some bolder civ choices, but I still find it very insipid.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

newton would have been the obvious choice if they really wanted to go scientific. i wonder why they picked Ada instead?

I initially wasn't too keen on having non heads of states as leaders either, but that's not changing anytime soon so I've dealt with that fact along with civ switching.

I can understand that frustration, but I don't understand why you'd go for Isaac Newton over Ada Lovelace either. Wouldn't Isaac Newton break your immersion just as much?

 

[RedCourtJester]

He's been in the game repeatedly. He's boring. Rome had dozens of other emperors and hundreds of non-emperors. He's the poster child of how tame and uninspired many of Civ7's leader choices have been. (I get that it's to offset civ switching and some bolder civ choices, but I still find it very insipid.)

I'm glad I'm not the only person to think so. Although I have kind of accepted that certain civs, especially "base game" civs, are likely to get some basic b (Gilgabro) as their leader. They need to cater to casuals somehow.

I would argue Rome got the worst of it this time around, although I think Russia and the Inca aren't far behind (and Napoleon).