Missing strategic resource: Latex (Rubber) from the Rain Forest

[vit_sin]

Missing strategic resource: Latex (Rubber) from the Rain Forest

Rubber has played a largerly hidden role in global political and environmental history for more than 150 years.
One wants Industrial Revolution?

If so, one needs three raw materials:
1.iron, to make steel for machinery.
2.fossil fuels, to power that machinery.
3.and rubber, to connect and protect all the moving parts.

So, where is the rubber in Civ VI ? (I do recall Civ5 had rubber)
cheers

 

[Jarms48]

Whilst I'd love to see more resources, one could make anything an in-game resource:
- bison: bonus resource
- amber: bonus/luxury resource
- obsidian: bonus resource
- papyrus: bonus resource (probably equally as important in ancient history as rubber is to us today)
- rubber: bonus/strategic resource
- titanium: bonus/strategic resource
- dozens of different gemstones
- dozens of different metals

 

[Siptah]

I think we'll see some more strategic resources and luxury resources with the expansions. New units and technologies are probably coming together with strategic resources. Also note that so far we have no building that needs strategic resources in civ VI. This might also change and mix up how the resources are used just now and how they might add new ones.
Rubber would sure be a nice addition to what we have now.
I like your list @Jarms48. Those would all be nice additions, some more different from what we have now (papyrus probably generating science and culture), while some (bison) might just be a known resource (deer) on another terrain (plains instead of forest).
Millet or potatoes could be complementary to wheat and rice imo, and be available on plains as well as grasslands.
I still miss pepper as a luxury resource. Yes, I know, we have spices...
Silicon might be a good addition for modern strategic resources needed for advanced units and maybe some space projects.
Kaolin might also be a nice resource. Probably a luxury one.

I remember in videos before release, Firaxis stated that some resources might change over time. Mercury being very good resource in the beginning, and not anymore in later eras. This was not implemented afaik. Maybe this will come as well and make room for new resources (unlock new ones with techs and make old ones obsolete). It would add some more micro-management though.

Did they add gold as a luxury resource with the Australia DLC or is it just for the scenario?

 

[Leyrann]

Though rubber does make some sense as a strategic resource, it is also one of the first widely synthesized materials, so I don't know wheter it'd make a good strategic resource (then again, horses were spread everywhere once anyone domesticated them, iron is the most abundant metal (maybe even element?) in the earth's crust, niter was not exactly scarce either, and the problems with uranium and aluminium also weren't that they were so scarce, but rather the difficulties in processing them, leaving only coal and oil as strategic resources that kinda make sense from a historical perspective, and even then it isn't like there's countries where the industrial revolution didn't happen because there was no coal, nor are there countries where it's impossible to get any oil (sorry for putting my full post between brackets)).

 

[Cliomancer]

I don't recall Rubber being a resource in Civ 5, unless it was in a scenario.

Though rubber does make some sense as a strategic resource, it is also one of the first widely synthesized materials, so I don't know wheter it'd make a good strategic resource

Also, Henry Wickham took rubber tree seeds from Brazil (Or "stole" as he put it) and brought them to Kew Gardens in London, which allowed the British to grow rubber trees in colonial plantations.

If it can be synthesised, perhaps it could be done with a building, like how Aluminium was available through the recycling centre in Civ 5.

 

[vit_sin]

I don't recall Rubber being a resource in Civ 5, unless it was in a scenario

Brave New World DLC

My original post was not about who steal from who and why, but about the fact that try to run vehicle(airplane) w/o rubber wheels, or make a surgery w/o rubber gloves, etc.
The point is - rubber is so common today that we don't even realize how important it is.

 

[Browd]

Rubber was a resource in Civ 3, but not in Civ 5 or in any of its expansions or DLC, including BNW. There were mods (like Exploration) that added rubber; perhaps that is what you recall.

According to the Rubber Manufacturers Association, 70% of all rubber produced and used today is synthetic rubber, which requires oil as feedstock, rather than any source of latex or any other rubber-tree related resource. So I would submit that Oil (as a resource) adequately addresses your rubber concerns.

 

[Cliomancer]

I could definitely see Rubber as being an important rung on the tech tree though. Then again some civilizations had it long before the industrial revolution so perhaps it'd need another name. (Even "Synthetic Rubber".)

 

[Cliomancer]

Come to think of it, wouldn't Rubber pretty much be a good bonus resource? +1 Production, increasing to +2 sometime in the industrial era?

 

[Zaarin]

iron is the most abundant metal (maybe even element?) in the earth's crust

No and no. The most abundant element is oxygen, and the most abundant metal is aluminum (followed by iron). Iron seems more abundant because it's more easily mined and refined than aluminum, which is why you don't see much non-ornamental use of aluminum before the advent of recycling.

I would like to see a greater variety of resources, though.

 

[Leyrann]

No and no. The most abundant element is oxygen, and the most abundant metal is aluminum (followed by iron). Iron seems more abundant because it's more easily mined and refined than aluminum, which is why you don't see much non-ornamental use of aluminum before the advent of recycling.

I would like to see a greater variety of resources, though.

Sorry, you're right.

That said, iron is pretty easy to refine, and it's still extremely common.

And lets be real - the reason oxygen is so common is because of ironoxide and other oxidized elements. Also, I don't know by heart and I'm too lazy to look it up, but doesn't bauxite contain oxygen too?

 

[Browd]

Bauxite is chock full of oxygen atoms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauxite

 

[Leyrann]

So I figured I'd just look it up instead of continuing to work with information from memory:

Most common is oxygen, which is typically found in ores, like the extremely common bauxite and iron ore that contain aluminium and iron respectively. It is also typically found in a greater number% than aluminium and iron, and at least equal, so it just makes sense oxygen is number one.
Silicon is the second most common element (not a metal btw). It is still much more common than iron and aluminium and is typically bonded with, you guessed it, oxygen.
Aluminium is the third most common element, mostly found in bauxite. It is also the most common metal. It is a post-transition metal, which menas it's just on the edge of still actually being a metal.
Iron is the fourth most common element. Fun fact: iron is relatively common in the universe because it is the element with the lowest stable energy state; splitting it costs energy, but fusing it costs energy too.

So, bottom line, it's weird that iron and aluminium are strategic resources - iron is easy to extract from ore, and while aluminium is a lot harder, people learned to extract it first and only started using it after that. Copper would already make a lot more sense, being some 500 times as rare as iron, and lead and tin, being known since ancient times, are even rarer.

 

[Zaarin]

So I figured I'd just look it up instead of continuing to work with information from memory:

Most common is oxygen, which is typically found in ores, like the extremely common bauxite and iron ore that contain aluminium and iron respectively. It is also typically found in a greater number% than aluminium and iron, and at least equal, so it just makes sense oxygen is number one.
Silicon is the second most common element (not a metal btw). It is still much more common than iron and aluminium and is typically bonded with, you guessed it, oxygen.
Aluminium is the third most common element, mostly found in bauxite. It is also the most common metal. It is a post-transition metal, which menas it's just on the edge of still actually being a metal.
Iron is the fourth most common element. Fun fact: iron is relatively common in the universe because it is the element with the lowest stable energy state; splitting it costs energy, but fusing it costs energy too.

So, bottom line, it's weird that iron and aluminium are strategic resources - iron is easy to extract from ore, and while aluminium is a lot harder, people learned to extract it first and only started using it after that. Copper would already make a lot more sense, being some 500 times as rare as iron, and lead and tin, being known since ancient times, are even rarer.

I have to agree. The scarcity of iron in Civ games, especially Civ6, makes absolutely no sense. During the bronze age, major of centers of power grew up around the availability of copper, tin, and arsenic (which were often found in different places); in many cases these centers of power collapsed or diminished after the transition to the much-more-readily-available iron. Civ seems to assume bronze can be found anywhere while iron needs careful sourcing, but historically it was definitely the other way around--it would make much more sense to make copper and tin strategic resources and iron a bonus resource (suggesting not the presence but a particular abundance of iron).

 

[gettingfat]

At this point, rare earth is likely a much more important strategic resource than rubber.

 

[Ryika]

I have to agree. The scarcity of iron in Civ games, especially Civ6, makes absolutely no sense. During the bronze age, major of centers of power grew up around the availability of copper, tin, and arsenic (which were often found in different places); in many cases these centers of power collapsed or diminished after the transition to the much-more-readily-available iron. Civ seems to assume bronze can be found anywhere while iron needs careful sourcing, but historically it was definitely the other way around--it would make much more sense to make copper and tin strategic resources and iron a bonus resource (suggesting not the presence but a particular abundance of iron).

The logic behind it is probably its universality. You can use Iron as a "symbol" to build just about anything starting from the medieval age up to modern times, from units to buildings, and it never really gets outdated, especially because steel still keeps it relevant.

Copper on the other hand has very specific areas where it's used, and it's seldom the "main" resource needed for anything on the sale of things that we would construct in Civ during more modern times.

@topic:
I think getting Rubber from Rain forests would be both, interesting and questionable. Rain Forests are SO specific to one area that the Resources would easily be monopolized by just a few Civilizations. And I believe Island Maps don't even have Rain Forest? (<- I may be totally wrong on this.) I can't quite decide if I find that interesting, or problematic.

 

[Jarms48]

@topic:
I think getting Rubber from Rain forests would be both, interesting and questionable. Rain Forests are SO specific to one area that the Resources would easily be monopolized by just a few Civilizations. And I believe Island Maps don't even have Rain Forest? (<- I may be totally wrong on this.) I can't quite decide if I find that interesting, or problematic.

I don't think that's so bad, as long as they add other resources with the same specific properties. It promotes trade, and could spark conflicts.

 

[Leyrann]

The logic behind it is probably its universality. You can use Iron as a "symbol" to build just about anything starting from the medieval age up to modern times, from units to buildings, and it never really gets outdated, especially because steel still keeps it relevant.

Copper on the other hand has very specific areas where it's used, and it's seldom the "main" resource needed for anything on the sale of things that we would construct in Civ during more modern times.

Would it then not make more sense to have copper as strategic resource and iron as bonus resource? After all, you have iron everywhere and need it everywhere, while copper is rare and has specific (strategic) uses. I mean, iron as a strategic resource would actually be a lot like timber being a strategic resource.

 

[vit_sin]

Timber in general was always neglected as a strategic resource in Civ, while all naval units up till Ironclad - all of them were created from timber as a base material. Even Ironclads had tons of timber in its components.

Just to remind, that Copper today lays in the base of ALL cables in the world (including the power cords giving electricity to y computer)

And we completely forget how important was Salt - up till Refrigeration, it was almost the only way to preserver Food, and Refrigeration tech is what, less than 100 y.o.? Yes, Refrigeration was very well known but did not served as preserving food, but it was Salt - all the way. I think Salt must be another Strategic Resource, absolute w/ Refrigeration tech. Google "salt trade trails wars".

 

[Zaarin]

The logic behind it is probably its universality. You can use Iron as a "symbol" to build just about anything starting from the medieval age up to modern times, from units to buildings, and it never really gets outdated, especially because steel still keeps it relevant.

Copper on the other hand has very specific areas where it's used, and it's seldom the "main" resource needed for anything on the sale of things that we would construct in Civ during more modern times.

I get that it was done for gameplay reasons, but historically it hardly makes sense. IMO the best solution would be to make the bronze age longer to heighten the use and importance of copper and tin as strategic resources. And as vit_sin points out, copper is still an important and valuable resource.