I just think metallurgy, or even steel, is a less than perfect selection because, while it appears horizontally on around the right place for a proper counter unit, which is to say the same tier or a tier or two before, I think vertically it's very suboptimal.
I chose metallurgy or steel in an (obviously failed) attempt to kill two birds with one stone. Aside from addressing the proposed unit, I'm always looking for ways to make the tech tree have more viable options. As it currently stands, there's a "correct" way of pursing the tech tree, or at least one which has universally applicable positive results. As such, I'm growing weary of education->printing press->scientific theory->radio(oxford)->plastics being the priority techs every... single... game, regardless of victory intentions. If research labs were unlocked in a different path, one which did not include public schools (and then obviosuly removing that building as a prerequisite building), then the tech tree would have multiple options: getting to public schools the fastest would give the most consistent scientific boosts, but then would be tangential to a direct path at Research Labs, and going for research labs earlier would cause a substantial period where no new science buildings were unlocked (the Dark Ages) but would be the quickest way to get to the best science building and would be supplemented by earlier access to Fertilizer and quicker growth... but only when you can support the extra happiness requirements. Additionally, the public school route, which is
probably slightly inferior technologically, still has the Oxford-sling to radio and therefore probably quicker to ideology selection.
But admittedly, everything mentioned above has to do with increasing flexibility of the tech tree, which would add variety to the game, but is not relevant to the proposed unit itself. Anyway, that's why I went there.
the unit should not require a strategic resource; most iron in this era, if playing naval, would be denoted towards frigates themselves. Subs do not require oil.
Agree. I went back and forth on this myself and ended up including iron because 1.) if Frigates required iron, there's little logic behind galleons
not requiring iron (then again, if logic is our basis, horse archers not requiring horses, war elephants do require horses, subs and destroyers operate without oil, coal, or anything powering them... clearly logic/realism isn't the basis for deciding resource requirements.) and 2.)whenever a new unit is proposed, there's a tendency of the proposer to err on the side of overpowering it than of underpowering it so people will like and use the unit. Keeping a resource requirement on a unit is one way of keeping the proposed unit in check.
However, most counter units in the game are resource free, which tends to favor the underdog player as they are more likely to need to counter the favored player. Pikes, AA's, and mobile SAMs are all units designed to counter another unit, and are all resource free. Lancers are a counter unit that are essentially resource free as they use an otherwise obsolete resource.
but I think crippling its mobility by making it unable to enter oceans and limiting its movement so severely completely defeats its purpose. Any unit able to counter frigates must be supremely mobile, as this is one of the frigate's key traits.
See your point but disagree. Frigates high mobility makes them dangerous because they can reach their destination and fire very quickly, but in terms of defending against frigates, the defender already knows where that destination is going to be: the vicinity of their cities. As such, the defender does not need that many moves. Additionally, in order to make this unit
counter frigates but not completely remove their utility in the game, a highly restrictive movement allotment would make the frigate counter only realistically effective around your own cities - you then couldn't bring the "frigate-counter" unit to enemy land to counter
their "frigate-counter" unit (i.e. it would be difficult/unrealistic to bring galleons to dispose of their defensive galleons, opening the way for your frigates to do their thing unopposed.) Another solution to frigates unbalanced effectiveness would be for them to need to set up before firing and having that auto-end their turn, because if cannons on land need to set up before firing, why would cannons on a ship not need to? -but again, this has more to do with fixing the frigate problem than evaluating the new unit, so factor that in to the degree of your liking.
