I do find the diversity of perspectives on historical relevancy so interesting - I legitimately know nothing about Lafayette that I didn't learn from the Hamilton musical, and I think I probably first heard about Ada Lovelace when I was still in primary school. She's definitely not topping my list of well-known historical figures, but I'd put her about halfway up that list for the civ 7 leaders we've had confirmed. I'd put her above Amina, Ashoka, Tubman, Himiko, Ibn Battuta, José Rizal, Lafayette, Tecumseh, Trunc Trac, and Pachacuti in terms of "have I heard of this person from a couple of sources that aren't historical sources I don't expect the average gamer would have read". That's not to say my position is universal - I'm sure that people from the Philippines have heard of José Rizal far more than I, Americans Tecumseh and Lafayette, etc. Even stuff like being raised in an English-speaking family that loved books and science, and would regularly get me science books, definitely made a big impact here. But it's very interesting to see how different everyone's perspectives are on who is an 'unknown'
Why Ada Lovelace is not a good choice to lead Great Britain
- Thread starter agamemnon_of_the-bronze_
- Start date
King of Prussia
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2011
- Messages
- 446
Ed said at the end of the MP stream that he has been to GB more than any other country, and loves it. He said there would be more content for it before Civ 7 is all done.
So with all that said, i would not be surprised several more civs/leaders added at some point. With the picks they have made so far for Civ 7, we could get some rather spicy picks or more traditional ones.
Oberst Kraft
Abwehrschule
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2025
- Messages
- 102
YES. And the Codpiece should be his UA (+6 to
Replaces his current civ's theme with the soundtrack of a certain musical
Sagax
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,682
We literally have the Memento system just for that. Seeing how most of the early-level mementos are items associated with the leaders, the codpiece will not at all be out of place…
Whether splitting leaders from civs is a 'step forward' for civ is purely a matter of opinion, and depends on what you want from the game. Clearly opinions are mixed on it, while many love the design choice made in splitting them, there are plenty who do not.
Personally i prefer to have a leader that is related to the civ i am playing. When i see Catherine leading the Romans, it breaks immersion for me. You may not care, and you may correctly point out civ has many historical inaccuracies, but many people play for immersion over mechanics.
Many people like the idea of splitting civs and leaders, because it increases the variations they can try or because they like the possible mix of mechanics or feel it removes design constraints. I can respect that, because i respect that people play civ for different reasons.
ombak
Prince
Since every level of meta progression and memento unlock needs a clever name, I suggest a certain SNL reference if they ever go that way...
I think its a given, the goal of any company is to make a good profit and there appears to be a demand for British leaders/content.
For the same reason i expect more American leaders as well.
I really wish people who dislike the changed mechanics would stop assuming people on the other side only care about mechanics (I'm not going to use the term "immersion," which is a meaningless word in the first place). Many people who like the changes also like it because they see it as more historical or, in the case of decoupling leaders, don't see it as affecting their perception of the historicity of the game (I never saw leaders as something historical in the game in the first place so I'd enjoy seeing a more varied roster).
Steinernein
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Messages
- 33
It's all just alt-historical-fantasy-whatever, so sure why not.
Now I can do some true brain rot stuff like roleplaying an Ada Lovelace that had gotten run over by a truck (carriage) and reincarnated as the leader of the Han people -- new playstyles, new horizons!
That's as immersive as it gets.
Now I can do some true brain rot stuff like roleplaying an Ada Lovelace that had gotten run over by a truck (carriage) and reincarnated as the leader of the Han people -- new playstyles, new horizons!
That's as immersive as it gets.
I hate the idea of there being 'another side' . People want different things out of the game and we should all be able to respect that surely. For you, the leaders were never a historical thing in the game, that's fine- for me it mattered that they were linked to the civ i was playing.
With fully fledged paths along historical lines for each civ i may have gotten on board with civ changing too, but i would have had the leader change to an appropriate leader of that civ as the civ changes (i appreciate this would need a lot more leaders)
"The other side" simply meaning people who like the changes; nothing hostile was intended.
well if Fredrich leads Britain....
Then we have the Shaman Queen of England.
agamemnon_of_the-bronze_
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2024
- Messages
- 159
if that is what you are reading into what i am saying, it says more about where your thoughts lie than mine.
There are plenty of possible reasons.
They may have wanted a modern scientist, and felt Newton was too early.
They may have wanted a computer related scientist because of her abilities which are not yet released
They may have wanted to pick someone who is less well known but interesting, with the intention that people will read up on her (i did, when she was announced)
I would personally have picked Turing for the maths / computer person, because i think you could have linked him to spy stuff , but i dont understand the backlash against Lovelace really.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
That might work better if you explained how you understand "subaltern", because by most definition that does imply a group that is or should be in some way factually inferior to another.
Presumably not how you meant it judging by the reaction.
Presumably not how you meant it judging by the reaction.
I feel like they are just choosing leaders that they find interesting, with an additional eye to marketing.
The implication is that she is a "diversity" choice bumping out "actual" leaders, but if that was the case, she was frankly a pretty poor one:
tldr: If your main goal is "diversity" you don't replace a woman with another woman and then add 3 guys for France.
The implication is that she is a "diversity" choice bumping out "actual" leaders, but if that was the case, she was frankly a pretty poor one:
- Elisabeth, Victoria, etc: Great Britain of all civs has plenty of women leaders to choose from.
- They've got 3(4 if you count 2 Napoleons) men leading France, when Marie Curie is probably the most famous female scientist if that was their goal (and would give both French and Polish representation). If the main goal was diversity, they certainly could have had Marie Curie instead of Lafayette. Or Joan of Arc instead of Lafayette for more women. Or Alexandre Dumas instead of Lafayette if you wanted more non-white representation...
tldr: If your main goal is "diversity" you don't replace a woman with another woman and then add 3 guys for France.
Can I have your wisdom then, sir? You can choose the penalty and be the decider. I am not familiar enough with all the nyances. Like fifteen years ago here at civfanatics people came to agreement instead of shutting down opinions and no one was permanenty hurt in the process.
I am over 50 years old. I do know "subaltern" is a thing communists invented, maybe Marx himself. They invaded europe, and destroyed my homelands after the revolution of 1918. Killed my older brother aged 16 months with an knife.
Similar threads
