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

[UWHabs]

Had Isaac Newton not come up with the laws of gravity, certainly someone else would have in under fifty years.

Had James Watt not built the first modern steam engine, certainly someone else would have in under thirty years.

Had Edwin Hubble not observed that there are other galaxies out there, and that they appear to be moving away from us, certainly someone else would have in under thirty years.

And yet, we still celebrate each of them for their achievements. Why should Ada Lovelace be any different?

Also, why does every leader have to be the very best to be included? Are we limited to only the best military commander, only the best strategist, only the best philosopher? We don't necessarily have the "best" Roman emperor in the game, but they still obviously picked someone notable with accomplishments.

I mean, sure, obviously you can argue whether it makes sense to include a mathematician/computer scientist as a leader. Obviously there can be some debate there. And yeah, once you concede having one in, you could argue that maybe they could have picked Einstein, Euler, Euclid, Babbage, Turing, etc... as another option. But just like for civs, they don't always pick the top option, sometimes it's great to find an alternate option that still had a sizeable contribution, someone who people don't know much about, and who makes for an interesting choice. Would the game sell more copies if they picked Einstein as the playable leader? Probably. But if you're going to let scientists in the door as a leader choice, I have no problem at all going with someone who is A. Not as well known and B. who make enough of a contribution that they probably should be more well known.

 

[Gorbles]

Not to be the spoilsport here but Ada did not really advance the field. We had discovered what she thought and wrote long after creating first computers and programming languages.
Just like Babbage, they sit on the same spot as the Greek philosophers who got the atomic theory right, which had absolutely no effect on actual physics.

It's actually been the subject of some debate, and a hundred years (well, less than given that the Analytical Engine is considered Turing-complete) is a lot closer to the modern day than ancient Greek philosophers.

Babbage was a direct inspiration to people well into the early 20th century. It's hard to say what would have happened if you took him out of the equation of history, and likewise for taking Lovelace out of the picture.

Da Vinci (and others) inspired the Wright brothers. History is a tapestry, and any "pushing past" is because we want to celebrate extraordinary achievements by extraordinary people. We cannot predict how history would've changed for their absence.

 

[Willie5000]

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.

Interesting that all the figures you’re proposing are all men…

Once you have an escaped slave as leader of America, a dilettante mathematician as leader of Britain is just icing on the absurdity cake.

And what’s wrong with escaped slaves exactly? Remember that the leaders are totally detached from civs now.

 

[AD1730]

Interesting that all the figures you’re proposing are all men…

Considering that England has often had women leaders in the game, if you're going to pick someone different who fits the traditional Civ leader mold, it's probably going to be a man. I don't think we need to accuse someone of being a sexist.

 

[Willie5000]

Considering that England has often had women leaders in the game, if you're going to pick someone different who fits the traditional Civ leader mold, it's probably going to be a man. I don't think we need to accuse someone of being a sexist.

Then they could have at least suggested Elizabeth I again.

It’s entirely warranted, people always complain when it’s a woman leader they haven’t heard about.

 

[Leyrann]

Considering that England has often had women leaders in the game, if you're going to pick someone different who fits the traditional Civ leader mold, it's probably going to be a man. I don't think we need to accuse someone of being a sexist.

Then they could have at least suggested Elizabeth I again.

It’s entirely warranted, people always complain when it’s a woman leader they haven’t heard about.

I have to say, if I was asked for my thoughts on an English leader inclusion with the specific requirement that they were also a head of state, I would be in favor of a man, as they have had women to represent them so many times already.

This despite my general opinion that I think it's fine, even preferable, to bias the roster of a Civ game a bit more towards female rulers than the historical balance between male and female rulers - if for no other reason than that it provides variety and that being a female ruler in a male-dominated world is itself an accomplishment already (or, more specifically, indicative of an accomplishment that was necessary to obtain the position in the first place).

 

[AD1730]

Then they could have at least suggested Elizabeth I again.

It’s entirely warranted, people always complain when it’s a woman leader they haven’t heard about.

if you're going to pick someone different who fits the traditional Civ leader mold

Read the comment. Elizabeth I has been in the game many times. Again, don't just jump to accusing people of being a sexist.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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.

people cosplay her. she was a celebrity even in her day, as the only legitimate child of lord byron. and that doesn’t even get to begin into her countless actual accomplishments, most notably that she understood how a computer could work 100 years before one ever got built and knew it was more than a glorified calculator

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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.

yeah i grew up on civ 3 and 4, so civ 5’s self-celebratory “serious” nature is tiring, even more so because no one seems to understand that civ 5 is the only civ game that isn’t at least partially making fun of its self. this is why “civ 6 is cartoony” threads make me want to nuke civ discourse harder than gandhi himself

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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.

thanks for signing my rajendra chola for civ 7 petition. it’s clearly the most pressing concern in civ 7 since every civ should have a leader.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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

the worst thing she did to her mother was idolize her dad who kept cheating on her lol

 

[Kev1916]

Then they could have at least suggested Elizabeth I again.

It’s entirely warranted, people always complain when it’s a woman leader they haven’t heard about.

Looks like many people are getting confused England is not Britain - Elizabeth 1 is an English leader

So Ada Lovelace is as a pretty decent and good choice, at least it's not a racist war criminal

​

 

[queenpea]

We’ve had multiple threads now fretting over the exclusion of England or GB in the base game, and now, it seems, we are doomed to endure further threads critiquing their inclusion in DLC. (Note: it is well understood that Lovelace is not tied to GB in DLC as leaders are separate from civs in VII)

Yeah, free speech yada yada, but I wish we could put a fork in this and move on.

She’s here (in March). She has a fabulous dress on and flowers in her hair, and she’s here to stay.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Not to be the spoilsport here but Ada did not really advance the field. We had discovered what she thought and wrote long after creating first computers and programming languages.
Just like Babbage, they sit on the same spot as the Greek philosophers who got the atomic theory right, which had absolutely no effect on actual physics.

Does that preclude fame and inclusion in games? No.
Example above all being Leonardo Da Vinci and the public obsession with his "inventions". Is Da Vinci the inventor of tanks, helicopters and what-not? No, he had absolutely no part in them.
But people still bring him up and a game like Civ would be perfectly fine throwing in him as an inventor with a science bonus or even a unique unit based on one of the plausible ones.
The fame during his lifetime came from his art, not silly weapon scribbles.

But at the same time please do not push the argument past that.
We recognize Ada and Babbage as people who had the right ideas a hundred years before the first computer, but absolutely nothing came of them.
Neither one's work was actually used in the eventual establishment and progress of computer science. Unlike Newton and co.

by this logic, darwin didn’t actually do anything either, since he could only theorize natural selection, didn’t propose evolution, the theories of evolution already existed prior to him (lamarck and others), and it took until Mendel to actually prove the existence of genetics to prove natural selection and evolution

Would Mendel also be a great leader choice? I think he’d be cool, for sure, but I don’t think it’s fair to put down theorists unilaterally. a lot of math and foresight was necessary to predict what babbage and lovelace did of computers, just as darwin had to do much observation to correctly theorize natural selection (and he still got genetics wrong)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I would totally anticipate a musician or artist, if the movement they started were significant enough to affect people culturally to the same extent computers did.

That just makes the list of potentials extremely narrow. Offhandedly, the only ones I would feel fairly comfortable pointing to would be Bach (orchestral music) and Jules Verne (science fiction), and Tolstoy (historical literature and non-violent resistance). Maaaaybe Andre Breton/Salvador Dali? Mayyyybe Hugo/Dumas?

Frankly, it is Rizal who rubs me the weirdest, because his legacy is both largely post-humous and extremely localized.

Mozart, Chaucer, Homer, Shakespeare, Michelangelo

 

[Willie5000]

Looks like many people are getting confused England is not Britain - Elizabeth 1 is an English leader

So Ada Lovelace is as a pretty decent and good choice, at least it's not a racist war criminal

​

Yeah I’m sayingModerator Action: *Snip* Do not attack other members he could have suggested Elizabeth. But he didn’t.

 

[lymond]

Moderator Action: Stop personal attacks on other members. Keep the discussion civil. If you have a problem, report the post but personal attacks and flaming will not be tolerated. -lymond

Moderator Action: Edit: Some posts have been deleted or edited. -lymond

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Too early to judge. Doesn't seem bad.

Leader abilities first, then find a suitable name. The name has to scream "Great Britain" and contrast clearly against other nations in that region. It has to feel "modern age". It has to be cartoon-y because the entire civilisations series is a humourous parody of human history.

 

[Kyriakos]

Had Isaac Newton not come up with the laws of gravity, certainly someone else would have in under fifty years.

Had James Watt not built the first modern steam engine, certainly someone else would have in under thirty years.

Had Edwin Hubble not observed that there are other galaxies out there, and that they appear to be moving away from us, certainly someone else would have in under thirty years.

And yet, we still celebrate each of them for their achievements. Why should Ada Lovelace be any different?

Had Archimedes not come up with calculus, we would have to wait 1800 years for it. And we did, because in the time of Archimedes there was no incentive to examine functions without meaningful geometric representation
Sometimes important people do appear in math/science.

 

[Leyrann]

Had Archimedes not come up with calculus, we would have to wait 1800 years for it. And we did, because in the time of Archimedes there was no incentive to examine functions without meaningful geometric representation
Sometimes important people do appear in math/science.

I can't comment on Archimedes, but I deliberately selected widely celebrated individuals who came up with things that would likely have appeared within a few decades even if these specific individuals hadn't made the breakthrough, specifically to ensure the comparison was accurate.