Replaceable Parts needs rubber?

[warmachine]

An alternative name for the technology Replaceable Parts could be Precision Engineering. It is easy to imagine how replaceable, highly specified and standardised parts would lead to bolt action rifles, machine guns and artillery. What I can't see is how rubber fits into this. Rubber is used in vehicles but not rifles.

You could say infantry uses trucks but that's modern infantry, not the WWI infantry depicted, and it's a separate branch of the technology tree to the internal combustion engine branch.

Can someone explain how rubber is a vital material for infantry?

[Capt Dizle]

Well, the boys have to go to town now and again and in some places they might bring back some nasty surprises

[Capt Dizle]

Or to put it more bluntly, how can you expect your infantry to be effective if they have to haul their balls around in wheelbarrows?

[Jaybe]

None of the resources are "accurate" depictions of their names. You need rubber for infantry because it is a resource you have to have to build infantry (period).

The whole point is that you can't build a unit just because you know how. You have to have the raw materials, and rubber is it for infantry in this game.

This is Civilization, a strategic level game that deals with general principles and abstractions. It does not go into all the intricate details.

(Sorry, but this is just a non-issue).

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Jaybe
. . . The whole point is that you can't build a unit just because you know how. You have to have the raw materials, and rubber is it for infantry in this game.

This is Civilization, a strategic level game that deals with general principles and abstractions. It does not go into all the intricate details.

(Sorry, but this is just a non-issue).

In otherwords, whatever Firaxis says, no matter how inaccurate, non-historical, or illogical, is OK with you. Well, it's not with me, and never has been. And I have NO problem with rubber being required for Infantry - if one realized the need for supply (by truck) and other forms of transport.

But "because Firaxis says so" is not good enough for me, not nearly good enough. If they came out and called this a Fantasy game, OK, but it porports to be a SIMULATION of history - not fantasy. I feel the same way with other weird Firaxis concepts, including unlimited MP's on RR's. flipping, etc.

[fittstim]

Since the name of the game is "Civilization" and not "Kill your Neighbor", I suggest that we think of the Infantry unit as using rubber bullets - a la UN Peace Keeping Forces and the might Israeli army.

Thus the "logical" need for rubber to build infantry...

[alva]

@ Coracle: it's a GAME, in other words a GAME.
Maybe I should make myself clear, It is NOT realty but a GAME.
It is made to have fun, not to learn about the history of mankind, not to simulate history, I.E. a GAME

btw, you are not into monopoly/risk,...etc either are you?

[Robert Plomp]

You need the rubber for the rubber bullets
oh, and of course for the shoes of the infantry

[Ethelred]

Replaceable parts yields Infantry.

WWI infantry at least for a start.

Rubber was needed to help the poor sods in the trenches when it rain.

Especially when it rained poison gas.

Rubber is also needed for the tooling. Most such tools use electric motors. Rubber was used for the insulation till synthetics were developed.

Of course the catch is that replaceable parts actually began a bit earlier and the tooling wasn't electrical at the beginning. Then again the parts weren't all that replaceable till there were good electrical tools.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by CyberShy
You need the rubber for the rubber bullets
oh, and of course for the shoes of the infantry

Not to forget the condoms they need at vacation.

[notyoueither]

No rubber for wheels on vehicles to run a transportation system? No rubber for boots? No rubber for seals on machinery?

Then nothing capable of fighting beyond the strength of ACW riflemen in bear feet!

[Optimizer]

If you want nothing more than a game, go play chess. It has got multiplayer since centuries ago. Civ is, and should be, more than a game.

I think that access to Rubber is a bit too decisive. The Pedia mentions the rubber shortage in the Central Powers in WW1, but they still had got premium weaponry throughout the war, didn't they?

As I've said before, giving city improvements the ability to produce one resource from another - for instance Rubber from Oil - would add to fun, realism and strategic depth if properly balanced.

[Deathwalker]

Rubber is to powerful a resource more units should us oil rather than rubber. Also your right the WW1 soilder definatley does not use rubber

[fittstim]

Originally posted by Deathwalker
Also your right the WW1 soilder definatley does not use rubber

Well, maybe you're indirectly correct (I'm pretty sure they used leather for the construction of mustard gas masks) but that's not the point.

It's been adequately pointed out that certain things an infantryman needs to function is or, at one time, was dependent on rubber.

Condoms, of course, didn't see widespread action until the late 50's/ early 60´s ...

[Zachriel]

Infantry is characterized by industrial-scale production. For instance, there were enough uniforms at the beginning of WWI to clothe every male in Europe. Industrial-scale production requires rubber for the machinery.

[The diplomat]

Maybe the infantry need rubber for their shoes. After all, we wouldn't want them walking aroud bare foot, would we?

[dunk]

Originally posted by fittstim

Condoms, of course, didn't see widespread action until the late 50's/ early 60´s ...

Maybe latex condoms. Condoms in general have been around for centuries. Catholics aren't allowed to use them (even today... sex is only for procreation ), so that kept their usage down in the 1700s and 1800s.

I have no idea why rubber is required for infantry. Standarized parts was the whole premise of the industrial revolution. The concept allowed factories. Oil would be more important to industrial machinery than rubber. You need to have lubrication or your parts will wear down and break.

Replaceable parts and rubber, I don't see the link. But it doesn't bother me in the game, it's fine that infantry require a resource and I guess rubber is it.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by dunk
Catholics aren't allowed to use them (even today... sex is only for procreation ),

Not quite right. Only for married people and birth controll is a no no but it need not be for procreation only.

The concept allowed factories.

Factories came first. Mostly for textiles, but they definitly came first.

Oil would be more important to industrial machinery than rubber. You need to have lubrication or your parts will wear down and break.

No need for the kind of oil the game uses. At least not in such quantity that drilling was needed. What do you think whale hunting was about anyway. It was mostly for oil not food.

[steven8r]

I try to think of Rubber (or any of the Stragegic Resources) as a little more than just the resource.

Don't think of Rubber as just some plant juice that repels water. Think in terms of the 'macro resource'.

Your civ now has the ability AND materials to make tires for trucks (that you never actually see) that enable a whole new and faster delivery system throughout your civ.

That's why Workers can work faster. They can now go down to the local hardware store and buy a new hoe/shovel/pick/axe/machete handle rather than having to whittle one out of sticks that they find lying around.

With this better supply line, the concept of Infantry can now be built because your sewing factories can now receive cloth to make those spiffy uniforms. Your arms mfgrs can now get the materials to make better bullets/guns in shorter order.

Rubber (at least as applied to Civ3) is not just a Resource. It's a whole new way of life/thinking.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by steven8r
I try to think of Rubber (or any of the Stragegic
Rubber (at least as applied to Civ3) is not just a Resource. It's a whole new way of life/thinking.

Exactly. Vulcanized rubber represents the first of many synthetic products.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Ethelred

Not quite right. Only for married people and birth controll is a no no but it need not be for procreation only.

Then what purpose do married people use them for? Sex is only for procreation in the Catholic church, which is why birth control is a no no. Unmarried people having sex is adultery, which is a mortal sin.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Factories came first. Mostly for textiles, but they definitly came first.

I wouldn't call those factories. More like Working Places. The first "factories" were simply big rooms where a bunch of people did things by hand. An industrial factory has some kind of automation or mechanical help. That's what the Industrial Revolution was about. Using machines to produce goods as opposed to hand labor. Interchangeable Parts made machines a viable source of labor.

Originally posted by Ethelred
No need for the kind of oil the game uses. At least not in such quantity that drilling was needed. What do you think whale hunting was about anyway. It was mostly for oil not food.

Good point.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by dunk
Then what purpose do married people use them for?

Use what? Don't need to answer as this is really offtopic. If you meant condoms I don't see what has do with you claim about procreation only. You are stuck with an idea in your head that isn't real. Try learning about Catholicism from Catholics or at least ex-Catholics like me instead of Protestants that still haven't noticed that the Reformation occured centuries ago.

Sex is only for procreation in the Catholic church, which is why birth control is a no no. Unmarried people having sex is adultery, which is a mortal sin.

Wrong on both. Sex is not only for procreation, if you look at any decent (not wacko) Catholic site you will see that. You need to get out of your Dark Age thinking.

Unmarried people having sex is fornication not adultery. Adultery is sex with someones wife. Not with someones husband either. Only the wife counts as adultery in the Bible. Its really a property issue.

I wouldn't call those factories. More like Working Places. The first "factories" were simply big rooms where a bunch of people did things by hand.

Wrong again. They were using larger and expensive machinery and were not working by hand. Massive automatic looms not one person using a small loom and hand operated shuttle. Originally they didn't even use steam power. They used water power but that was pretty limiting.

An industrial factory has some kind of automation or mechanical help. That's what the Industrial Revolution was about. Using machines to produce goods as opposed to hand labor. Interchangeable Parts made machines a viable source of labor.

The Industrial Revolution was about steam power which moved the factories away from the rivers. The first factory that used lots of special tools that I am aware of was for making blocks for the British fleet. Thats the pulleys. That was a water power factory.

The Jacquard loom was the first highly automated textile machine but there were simpler ones before that were limited to unpatterned cloth. Jaquard's was developed around 1800 long before rubber was a usefull product.

http://www.deutsches-museum.de/ausst...ster/e_web.htm

[dunk]

"Contraception, sterilization and abortion are certainly part of the reason why in some cases there is a sharp decline in the birthrate. It is not difficult to be tempted to use the same methods and attacks against life also where there is a situation of "demographic explosion".

Source.... http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...-vitae_en.html

Read section 16. That's the Vatican. I'm a former Catholic myself. I don't think they would call it an "attack against life" if they thought contraception was ok.

EDIT: I forgot this part.

And here's a definition of Adultery. I was wrong about ALL extramarital sex being adultery. Unmarried people having sex is called fornication. It may have been only the wife in olden days, but it now includes the husband. I think the "property issue" is more non-Cristian tradition rather than Christian beliefs. I think the marriage vows speak for themselves on that account.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm

END EDIT

Ok, fine the Industrial Revolution was about Steam Power. Not only did it allow factories to be away from flowing water, but it allowed more automation (and hence greater production capabilities), which I've always been taught was the big thing about the Industrial Revolution in school. Standardized parts helped facilitate the use of complex machines by allowing them to be repaired more easily.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by dunk

Read section 16. That's the Vatican. I'm a former Catholic myself. I don't think they would call it an "attack against life" if they thought contraception was ok.

You still don't understand the difference. Not allowing contraception is not the same thing as saying sex is only for procreation. Its saying that pregnancy must be possible not certain. Thats different.


It may have been only the wife in olden days, but it now includes the husband. I think the "property issue" is more non-Cristian tradition rather than Christian beliefs. I think the marriage vows speak for themselves on that account.

Marriage vows have little to do with what the commandment is. The commandment is Jewish not Christian. If anyone has decided it means the husband they are denying what the Bible says. Fine by me but you were talking about the biblical commandment and some modern distortion.

Standardized parts helped facilitate the use of complex machines by allowing them to be repaired more easily.

Yes. The only thing is that it came after the Industrial Revolution began and the earliest efforts still required a lot of hand work. At least in what was the first effort in the US which was with firearms. Prior to electric motors whole factories where powered from a single source with shafts and pulleys. That limited the applicability of machine tools. Its interesting how long it took to get from the discovery of electricity to its application for power. It was a long time between Volta and Edison and more to the point Tesla and his motors.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Ethelred

You still don't understand the difference. Not allowing contraception is not the same thing as saying sex is only for procreation. Its saying that pregnancy must be possible not certain. Thats different.

By the Catholic Church, you may only have sex if it is in an attempt to conceive a child. Sex simply for pleasure is a no no. Conception is never a certainty. I mean, even at the peak time of a woman's menstrual cycle, the chances of conception are still about 1 in 5. Not allowing contraception is the same as saying sex is only for procreation. Any attempt to decrease your chances of becoming pregnant is a form of contraception, which is a no no. Even the "rhythm method". Your definition of contraception is too narrow.

Contrception..... Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=contraception

EDIT:
I think we're arguing in circles. Nobody wants unplanned children, even the Church. But the Church doesn't want people to "kill" potential people by using things like condoms or practices to lower pregnancy chances. So, the only way to accomplish "planned parenthood" is to only have sex when pregnancy is an acceptable outcome. Condoms, rhythm method, sponges are all no nos. This is why I say the Church beleives that sex is only for pro-creation.
END EDIT

Originally posted by Ethelred
Marriage vows have little to do with what the commandment is. The commandment is Jewish not Christian. If anyone has decided it means the husband they are denying what the Bible says. Fine by me but you were talking about the biblical commandment and some modern distortion.

True, but they do have to do with what the Church beleives now. I know the 8th or 9th commandment is "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." Today that is meant as spouse. The Church has changed its views on women. The Catholic Church does not adhere to an exact literal interpretation of the Bible. For the most part it is literal, but some parts have changed slightly.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Yes. The only thing is that it came after the Industrial Revolution began and the earliest efforts still required a lot of hand work. At least in what was the first effort in the US which was with firearms. Prior to electric motors whole factories where powered from a single source with shafts and pulleys. That limited the applicability of machine tools. Its interesting how long it took to get from the discovery of electricity to its application for power. It was a long time between Volta and Edison and more to the point Tesla and his motors.

Ok. Agreed. How was electricity first discovered? I can't remember. Indeed, it was a long time. Let's see. What else can I say about the Industrial Revolution so I don't get a trip to "Mingapulco" for thread-jacking? Ah yes, factories really sucked to work in.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by dunk


By the Catholic Church, you may only have sex if it is in an attempt to conceive a child. Sex simply for pleasure is a no no.

You keep saying that but you are simply wrong. Thats from the Dark Ages.

Contrception..... Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

What does that have to do with what I said? Not one thing. I know what contraception is. I sorry that you needed to look it up to know.

EDIT:
I think we're arguing in circles.

Well you do keep repeating yourself. Not once giving a smidgen of support.

So, the only way to accomplish "planned parenthood" is to only have sex when pregnancy is an acceptable outcome.

Only you think so. The Catholic church does not.

Condoms, rhythm method, sponges are all no nos. This is why I say the Church beleives that sex is only for pro-creation.
END EDIT

You say it because you don't want to admit your wrong. If you were right then the Church would INSIST that people use the rythm method so they would only have sex when pregnancy is probable. They don't so you are wrong.

True, but they do have to do with what the Church beleives now.

I will that to the heretics. I prefer agnosticism myself.

I know the 8th or 9th commandment is "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." Today that is meant as spouse.

The meaning did not change simply because its no longer PC. The Pope has been clear on that regarding other points of dogma. So unless the Pope wants to declare this a change from what the Bible actually says then you are merely avoiding what the Bible says.

The Church has changed its views on women. The Catholic Church does not adhere to an exact literal interpretation of the Bible. For the most part it is literal, but some parts have changed slightly.

If that was so the Church would allow women priests. Let me know when that happens.

Ok. Agreed. How was electricity first discovered? I can't remember.

Sparks. Someone noticed them finally and called them static electricity. A steady current was discovered by Volta when he made the first battery. It often said that Galvani discoverd it but he didn't know what it was that he did. Volta knew and had allready made a battery. Yet another in a long line of people that didn't publish till someone else made a botched demonstration.

[vondrack]

dunk, man, I am with you... but do everybody a favor, please, and be the wiser one - give up... completely...

Strictly technically, Ethelred is correct. Your original statement ("the Catholic Church allows sex for procreation only") is not true. The Church apparently does not relate it in this way. You can have sex, if married and if using no birth control means. So far, Ethelred is correct. However, everybody understands that this reasoning is totally absurd, as it prevents people from having sex for pleasure only safely - you are always bound to accept possible pregnancy, even if unwanted.

It is just playing with words. Opposite of "for pleasure only" is not "for procreation only", although most people would agree that the practical meaning is much the same. Ethelred would understand you, too, should he wanted.

Ethelred, are you having a bad week? This is for the second time this week you flame up and start an argument because of a totally marginal, off-topic issue. First that childish dispute over breech-loaders with Barchan, now this contraception thing. What about keeping on topic more closely?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by vondrack

It is just playing with words. Opposite of "for pleasure only" is not "for procreation only", although most people would agree that the practical meaning is much the same. Ethelred would understand you, too, should he wanted.

I understood him fine. He is just wrong thats all.

Ethelred, are you having a bad week? This is for the second time this week you flame up and start an argument because of a totally marginal, off-topic issue. First that childish dispute over breech-loaders with Barchan, now this contraception thing. What about keeping on topic more closely?

I didn't flame here. I simply disagreed.

I wasn't childish with Barchan. He has his PM turned off if you didn't notice. I would still have made the first post however. Its my standard responce to people that engage in spelling games. The others would have been PMs. I will continue to use that responce to people that harp on my spelling errors when the intent was clear. When it isn't clear I deserve it and will admit it.


As for on topic I only replied to Dunk's posts. I really didn't expect him to keep repeating the exact same thing.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I wasn't childish with Barchan. He has his PM turned off if you didn't notice. I would still have made the first post however. Its my standard responce to people that engage in spelling games. The others would have been PMs. I will continue to use that responce to people that harp on my spelling errors when the intent was clear. When it isn't clear I deserve it and will admit it.

Hm. You know, I come from a country that does not speak English as its native language. Although I speak English fluently and have no problem expressing myself and/or understanding others, there are stilll tens of thousands of English words and expressions I do not know by heart. If you say that something is a breach-loader (and it is clear from the context what you mean), I do not open my dictionary and look the term up immediately. I just try remembering that the thing is a breach-loader. If it were not for Barchan, I would probably still believe in breach-loaders, even though the correct term is a breech-loader. Not much of a difference, right, but still - Barchan helped me correct something I learned wrong at first.

Apolyton is an international site, so you may wish to release your standard responses to people that correct your spelling. It never hurts to put it right...

[vondrack]

OK, vondrack, for God's sake, would you do the rest of us a favor and stop responding to OT posts?!?