This U Boat UU is bothering me on a fundamental level, way more than it rightfully should be. Like, I can't stop thinking how much of a terrible decision it was to make this Germany's UU.
1. It just feels wrong to change one of the few UUs that has been around since the adoption of unique units in civ 3. The panzer just feels like a core part of the German civ, much like Gandhi and his nukes are to India. Like, I understand the desire to keep things fresh, but you shouldn't change something that was core to the civ for three games without good reason, which leads me to 2,
I partly agree.
The U-Boat is a WW1/WW2 unit. The tank is a WW2 unit. Both come very late in the game while Barbarossa is a medieval Emperor and would be better of with a medieval unit like Teutonic Knight. (I still would like Germans to be able to develop/build high quality tanks as they did in WW2 with the PzV Panther.)
2. Germany was historically a continental, land power. It famously never had a true overseas empire, a point of contention which directly lead to WW1 in an attempt to gain one. Even before unification, the main German nations failed to make any substantial maritime traditions, again sticking to continental European affairs. Having a naval UU with no land UU misses the point of where Germany historically excelled at, and it feels wrong for Germany to have an intrinsically better modern navy than most civs when the development of U Boats in WW1 was more of a response to how utterly behind they were to Britain and France in the whole naval empire business.
I agree that as a continental power, German would be better off with a land UU.
As a continental power with 2-3 hostile neighbours (France, Russia, Austria, ...) most of the time, most resources were invested into land units and not into a fleet.
The German Empire was founded 1871. A modern german fleet was build around WW1 since Emperor Wilhelm II. was a fan of Mahan and as grandson of Queen Victoria admired the British Fleet. In 1914 the German Fleet had about 50% of the size of the British Fleet and probably was the 2nd biggest modern fleet in the world. (The German Fleet had Dreadnoughts and Pre-Dreadnought Battleships as well as modern BattleCruisers.) They were not behind in naval technology, they just had to spend more resources for land units compared with the British. And they had the geographical disadvantage that any german fleet could be easily blocked by England which geographically controlled the North Seas and the channel, the two streets to the Atlantic Ocean.
Performance of German Naval Forces in the Battle of Coronel 1914 or Battle of Jutland 1916 was probably comparable to British performance. Since the British Fleet had more reserves than the German Fleet, every german loss would have significantly reduced relative naval strength, so there were no more major naval battles in WW1 after Jutland.
3. The U Boats were more of a weapon of economics/terror, rather than a direct military unit. Submarines were good at hitting unprotected convoys and disrupting shipping, not at attacking enemy combat ships directly (especially when ASW was developed to counteract the rise of the U Boats). Their bonus therefore doesn't make historical sense to me; German submarines weren't any better at attacking ships in deep water than regular submarines; in fact in both world wars the British were in nominal control of the North Sea/Atlantic, not the Germans.
The interpretation of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare as "Terror" depends on the point of view. There were campaigns of unrestricted submarine warfare in WW1/WW2 by the Germans, but also in WW2 a campaign by the American and British against Japan.
Industrialized small island nations like England or Japan are highly dependent from resources and supplies by sea transport (naval trade) which can be blocked either by a superior Fleet or by U-boats.
-> Effect of U-Boats in Civ6 will probably depend on impact of naval trade routes.
In WW1 the german U-Boat was a useful weapon since it could slip through the british naval blockade which the German High-Sea-Fleet could not.
In WW1 german U-Boats sunk ca. 5.000 merchant vessels and 104 warships and damaged another 42 warships. (wikipedia)
In WW2 german U-Boats were almost successfull in destroying the British Merchant Fleet and isolating England in 1940/41 but finally lost the Battle in the Atlantic when the US entered the war (Liberty Ship).
In WW2 US U-Boats were used in the Pacific Theatre in an unrestricted submarine warfare to destroy Japanese merchant marine which finally collapsed Japanese economy. Japanese losses were numbered around 15.500 civilian vessels, 2.100 merchant vessels, 611 Imperial Japanese Navy vessels. (ca. 55% destroyed by US U-boats?, wikipedia)
In WW2 some capital ships like aircraft carrier, battleships and cruisers were damaged / sunk by submarines. However superior land/carrier-based aircraft were more usefull in sinking enemy ships.
4. The U boats, particularly in WW2, were also more of a weapon of desperation due to an abysmal surface fleet more so than "this is the best possible naval combat craft we can develop". I understand the context for U boats were different in WW1, when it was more testing experimental technology, but the UU itself appears to be a WW2 U boat rather than a 1. Either way, a heavy submarine fleet ended up being ineffective in both world wars, and to this day no navy subscribes to the wolfpack styled doctrine of German U boats.
For the Germans in WW1 / early WW2 U-boats were cheaper and more flexible than building a huge battle fleet to engage the British Fleet. It wasn't that the Germans did not know how to build ships, the resources were missing. (e.g. see
Bismarck)
In WW2 submarines became more vulnerable and ineffective in 1943-45 due to Enigma being broken and due to allied countermeasures like radar / sonar and aerial monitoring of the atlantic ocean.
I think wolfpack tactics were also used in the pacific by US submarines. The tactic became obsolete in Cold War with new types of submarines. Wolfpacks were quite successfull against convois in the early years of WW2.
5. All of that would be excused if it was actually a good unit, which I don't even think it will be. Judging from experience of previous civ games, naval combat primarly takes place on the shorelines, where coastal cities and landings take place in. I can't ever recall taking part of a pitched naval battle that happened in open waters; there's simply no reason to move a defensive fleet into open waters, when the only thing you should be worried about is protecting your own cities. Likewise, I never seen an offensive fleet intercepted, because there's no real advantage not defending in your territory where you can heal up faster and reinforce the fleet quicker. It seems like the devs thought it was a cool idea, but didn't really sit down and think if the unit was actually any good or not.
Like I said, this is bothering me on a level more than it really should. It's just... some of the other UU choices seemed to be different just for the sake of being different, and in some cases, like China, it works, but it did not work here and its just frustrating for me to see that.
I never built submarines in Civ5, only Destroyers and Battleships.
On a Pangaea Map, U-Boat will probably be a complete worthless UU.
