Airports =/= City Connection?

[CaptainPatch]

This was the Berlin Airlift.... After the second world war Berlin was behind the iron curtain of the soviet union. The soviets wouldn't let any one in or out. As a result the only way we could resupply our troops and feed civilians inside our section of Berlin was to fly food and materials in and out.

And at the time it was considered quite the herculean effort. And VERY pointedly, it was not considered to be anywhere near profitable. Necessary, but expensive. Ergo, not what you might interpret as a commerce connection.

 

[Ornen]

Not sure about other landlocked countries, but I understand that La Paz, Bolivia, relies heavily on air for trade and transport. Back in the gas and water wars of the early 2000s, one of the most successful methods used by protesters (including Evo Morales) involved blockading the route from El Alto airport to La Paz, essentially shutting down Bolivian commerce. And that's a metro of 2.3m.

 

[CaptainPatch]

Not sure about other landlocked countries, but I understand that La Paz, Bolivia, relies heavily on air for trade and transport. Back in the gas and water wars of the early 2000s, one of the most successful methods used by protesters (including Evo Morales) involved blockading the route from El Alto airport to La Paz, essentially shutting down Bolivian commerce. And that's a metro of 2.3m.

Founded in 1548, I can guarantee that it had road connections long before the airplane was even invented. That makes air travel an augmentation, rather than the solitary commerce connection.

 

[EK834]

And at the time it was considered quite the herculean effort. And VERY pointedly, it was not considered to be anywhere near profitable. Necessary, but expensive. Ergo, not what you might interpret as a commerce connection.

Indeed. Flying goods/supplies to countries in need (eg: Haiti after the earthquake) is still extremely expensive. Sending even small parcels by plane is expensive. It's virtually a specialty service, and the vast majority of goods are shipped by ships and trains/trucks. If anything should boost trade revenues it's not Airport but railroads connections (cities connected by railroad could perhaps get the same benefits from caravans as cargo ships do) and e-commerce from having Internet (+2 gold from all trade routes) that should .

 

[Fredgerd]

Most trade today is still over land or sea. Air is to expensive for shipping. You can do it but it's usually not economical, especially for heavy things.

 

[dhialuck]

So I read all the posts and I can conlcude that a city connection through an airport is indeed needed because Civ5 is not realistic enough to argue that for realistic purposes we cannot have airport connections. In this particular discussion as kaspergm pointed out there is no way to connect an inland city on another continent to your trade network (other than through another coastal city of your OWN on that same continent).
The solution is then to either:
_Allow creating a dock tile improvement that serves as a harbor connection and to which you need to create a road of course.
_Allow connection through roads to other civs with which you have open borders.
_Allow connection through airport.
_etc.

As you can see the first two options are so realistic and basic that it is easier to argue for them than to argue that airport connection is not realistic.

 

[householder]

As you can see the first two options are so realistic and basic that it is easier to argue for them than to argue that airport connection is not realistic.

I think it is possible, even reasonable, to advocate both points at the same time. Your first two solutions are very sensible and have ample precedents in the real world. The third option, however, is not realistic

 

[CaptainPatch]

Earlier in a different thread I suggested a Port tile improvement that would allow a city near a coast to make such a connection.

The idea was not well received.

I might suggest that if one of your cities on another continent built a road to a coastal City State, your commerce connection could trace through there -- provided you weren't at war with that CS. If connected that way, deduct 1 gold from any active trade route going that way for "shipping charges".

 

[Pythakoreas]

Great Ideas CaptainPatch. As for dhialuck I agree with Port/Dock improvement. The road connection from Open Borders already exists.

 

[HerrDoktor]

The largest city in Greenland is Nuuk, with a population <18,000. The second largest "city" is Sisimiut with population <6,000. In this day and age, #1 would be classified a "town" in most areas and the second little more than a "village". Trying to equate those on the same tier as an actual city of 1 million+ is quite a stretch. Even with cities of @100,000. (Anything less than 100,000 in the 20th century probably wouldn't even show on a Civ map.)

There's Manaus in Brazil, 1.8 million inhabitants, no land connections. Technically, it's connected to the rest of the country by river (3 days from there to Belem, on the Atlantic coast). Commerce flows by river ships, but people get there almost exclusively by airplane.

 

[CaptainPatch]

Commerce flows by river ships, but people get there almost exclusively by airplane.

Isn't connectivity in Civ V exclusively all about Commerce? The transfer and exchange of money and goods, as opposed to population migrations.

 

[whyidie]

In this particular discussion as kaspergm pointed out there is no way to connect an inland city on The

Why would you build an inland city without a connection to a coastal city ? Discovering a new continent and then establishing a city in the middle of it without a city to serve as a port seems odd. It seems intuitive to me that if I'm founding on a new continent, I'll establish a port city first, then push inland.

 

[CaptainPatch]

Why would you build an inland city without a connection to a coastal city ? Discovering a new continent and then establishing a city in the middle of it without a city to serve as a port seems odd. It seems intuitive to me that if I'm founding on a new continent, I'll establish a port city first, then push inland.

I find that the situation most often comes up because I was at war with another civ on another continent. Capture _some_ cities, the war concludes, and you realize that none of the captured cities are on the coast. If all the coastal "good spots" are already taken, your choice is to either go without the connection, or build a substandard city, just to make that connection.

 

[whyidie]

I find that the situation most often comes up because I was at war with another civ on another continent. Capture _some_ cities, the war concludes, and you realize that none of the captured cities are on the coast. If all the coastal "good spots" are already taken, your choice is to either go without the connection, or build a substandard city, just to make that connection.

I've found myself in this situation before. Conquered and liberated all the coastal cities. Kept the equivalent to a military base in the interior of the continent. There was a bad spot for a coastal city. I never founded it and terrible things did not happen as a result of no city connection.