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

[Nikolai II]

Moderator Action: Please keep the politics to the OT. Discuss the game and it contents, and keep it civil.

 

[marius_kaparius]

Seeing how upset some get over leader choices that are not "angry military man" is part of the appeal in my opinion.

 

[Acken]

The best solution would be to simply give two leaders per civ - one conventional (for conservative players) and the other with a completely new approach (for players eager for unconventional novelties).
Great Britain with Ada alone simply doesn't satisfy everyone.
French-like civilizations have Lafayette, two Napoleons and even Charlemagne. The audience has a choice. Of course, you could go even further and add another non-leader as a leader - Marquis de Sade (+2 to hapiness) for France would be an even bolder choice than Ada for Great Britain.

Yes but their release schedule seem to indicate that they are going closer to 1 leader per 2 civ ratio so it's not going to happen. It may be more costly for them to implement leaders due to VA, animations, mementos than for a civ.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Yes but their release schedule seem to indicate that they are going closer to 1 leader per 2 civ ratio so it's not going to happen. It may be more costly for them to implement leaders due to VA, animations, mementos than for a civ.

Until they start making leaders with AI.

I didn't know Elizabeth had three hands!

 

[Sagax]

This is a reminder that Civ 6 England/Britain started with 1 leader and ended up with 3+1, without anyone actively asking for them. I think it’s safe to assume that FXS are more than happy to add more British figures to the game.

I don’t feel one way or another about Ada until we see her abilities - then we can talk if FXS did justice to her inclusion or they just made a “reskinned Newton”.

This thread seems premature at best or quite a baggage to unpack at worst. The basic takeaway of “can we please also have a traditional British head of state?” is fine, but everything else is just borderline paranoia about “the ageeeendaaa, booo”

 

[Evie]

Two leaders per civ means:

-Only civ that have two sufficiently distinct leaders we can identify can even get in the game in the first place. Civilizations with no known leaders (Mississippian and other archaeological civilizations) and civilizations that lack additional easily identifiable and documented leader options (Macedon, Gran Colombia) are out, and so are their very well known and Worthy (tm) leaders.

-How many civilizations the game can add is bottlenecked by how many leaders the game can have (which is, quite obviously from both the base game and the expansion packs, less).

It's a bad idea no matter which way you look at it.

More leaders from Great Britain is almost certainly going to happen and I have no problem with that, because British subjects have had an outsized impact on the world for the size of their nation, but making it a "every civ need two leaders" rule is just horrendous at every level of design.

 

[Phrozen]

I do like divorcing civs and leaders. It lets civs with unknown leaders to be in the game and leaders with civs that normally wouldn't be in the game to appear. We can have Moche, Tiwanaku, Mississipian, Swahili, etc in the game and also figures like Zenobia, Skanderberg, etc in the game.

 

[Arcaian]

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.

I feel like this is going mask-off; the complaint is not that Ada Lovelace isn't an appropriate figure, it's that she's a figure from a 'subaltern' group, which are being celebrated by the current culture. It seems that Agamemnon's complaint isn't even that Ada Lovelace is inappropriate, but that she's from an inappropriate group - I have to assume women is the 'subaltern' group in question, right Agamemnon? If it were scientists, your suggestions of alternate scientists would feel strange - and I don't think it's particularly in-vogue right now to celebrate and advance scientists anyway.

 

[Uberfrog]

I know Clytemnestra murdered you and everything, Agamemnon, but that’s really no reason to be angry at women in general .

 

[Oberst Kraft]

No more linking leaders and civs.

My post wasn't about linking leaders and civs. Leave the game mechanics aside. It was about the idea of satisfying as many players as possible, apparently divided in terms of their satisfaction depending on whether they prefer to play a leader who is more or less historically justified in their opinion.

 

[Unaha-Closp]

I don't mind who is the representative of the UK, long as they are not problematic, as in racist as all get out or sexist, etc. Now I will go and look up Ada Lovelace only to find she was horrid and cruel and killed her stepmother or something smh

 

[Archanist]

I don't mind who is the representative of the UK, long as they are not problematic, as in racist as all get out or sexist, etc. Now I will go and look up Ada Lovelace only to find she was horrid and cruel and killed her stepmother or something smh

She started the horror that is known as "computer programming"

 

[fantsu]

Personal and biased opinion, without politics:

Mixing leader and civ is fun. IV having that all-leader option was always good times. Playing Isabella leading dutch was a blast. Endless opportunities really.
Is it revolutionizing the series now that its mandary, except for one age? No.

I think playing with unknowns can be left as dlc. I cannot think how funny is, when she announces war on me and wants to see my head on top of a stick.
I usually enjoy base game because I can relate to important people around me. Now I am forced to spend hundreds to get real opponents, not just sidenotes.

And I have nothing against any lady. Have many of them around me and so, so dear. Its clear how she is UK equivalent. No matter the mix and match. I know diplomacy has been simplified, but she must made some tough calls during gameplay never the less, as an political head. Its silly compared to Gandhi or Augustus as an historic person, not vice versa.

 

[Ornen]

Ed Beach:

(I think Ada is a great choice btw)

 

[AD1730]

I feel like this is going mask-off; the complaint is not that Ada Lovelace isn't an appropriate figure, it's that she's a figure from a 'subaltern' group, which are being celebrated by the current culture. It seems that Agamemnon's complaint isn't even that Ada Lovelace is inappropriate, but that she's from an inappropriate group - I have to assume women is the 'subaltern' group in question, right Agamemnon? If it were scientists, your suggestions of alternate scientists would feel strange - and I don't think it's particularly in-vogue right now to celebrate and advance scientists anyway.

Would be nice to have a discussion where we don't assume the absolute worst of people who disagree with us.

 

[Evie]

My post wasn't about linking leaders and civs. Leave the game mechanics aside. It was about the idea of satisfying as many players as possible, apparently divided in terms of their satisfaction depending on whether they prefer to play a leader who is more or less historically justified in their opinion.

I mean, most of the problems remain whole whether you call it "linking" or you just say the game need to provide two optiosn per civ: only civs that can provide (at least) two options can be added ; leaders from civs with only one option are off the map entirely ; civs with no options (archaeological civs, etc) are out. And there's the whole fairly clear problem that it's leaders, not civs, that are the biggest bottlenecks in adding content to the game - so the more civs require leaders to get in, the less civs we can have.

Fundamentally, any sort of "each civ need a certain number of leaders" severly limits the game (even if, once in the game, you're allowed to play those leaders with whichever civs). Accepting civs with none of their people as leaders, civs with one leaders and civ with two leaders (or three, or four) mixing it up in the game is the only way to break those limitations.

Of course, some civs should and will get two+ leaders, and I have every expectation for Britain to be one, so in *this* specific case, a second leader for Britain should take care of the problem. It'S just not a universal rule or solution that should be applied to every civ.

 

[Oberst Kraft]

(I think Ada is a great choice btw)

I also think Ada is a great choice.. As I have posted yesterday, she was even briefly (but only briefly as a too crazy idea) my pick for leader of Britain before she was announced. I just prefer there to be a balance between the needs of different players. That's why I think that apart from Ada, a conventional British leader should appear as soon as possible.

 

[Oberst Kraft]

Of course, some civs should and will get two+ leaders, and I have every expectation for Britain to be one, so in *this* specific case, a second leader for Britain should take care of the problem. It'S just not a universal rule or solution that should be applied to every civ.

100% agree

 

[Arcaian]

Would be nice to have a discussion where we don't assume the absolute worst of people who disagree with us.

I was more than happy to assume this was a specific issue with Lovelace and nothing more broad than that, until he started saying that Lovelace isn't a leader but is 'some figure' from a 'subaltern group' that is being 'advanced' by our current culture. What is that supposed to mean, except for the fact that some groups are not fit to be leaders? I don't know how else I am supposed to interpret it.

 

[Gorbles]

Ada Lovelace would be lucky to be a footnote.

If you did a poll on "William Pitt the Elder", the voting demographic would be "politics students from Oxbridge"

(and some history students, while I'm being charitable)