I have to agree with the moderator/developers here. A game of the scale of UV or the upcoming WitP cant really be any shorter than one day (which i think is fine in terms of the 'poll')
Though i'm as much of a detail freak as the next grognard i quickly came to realize that not being in total control of the carrier TF's (which is where i think this problem originates from) is realistic from the angle that the game presents. One already has incredible control over the tactical units in the game, including the carriers (by being able to assign missions to each squadron on the carrier, transfering them etc etc)
One has to admit, it is a hell of a lot better than Pacific War's one week block of turns where one had far less control over events, especially LBA. LBA ops really got hurt there....carriers were'nt so bad though not being able to control TF placement hurt even more badly than overenthusiastic reaction rules
Ironically, the smooth and detailed TF creation and movement routines contribute to this "illusion" that UV is a tactical based game of carrier warfare, thats actually a testiment to the game's solid design that it does so. But as many have already pointed out, this is 'not' a tactical carrier warfare game ala "CAW" or "Carrier Strike"
Trying to make UV any more detail orinented in terms of game turns would be like trying to make 12:o clock high, "bombing the Reich" into a game where the *allied* side can continually interupt along with the German player to continually adjust and change his "game plan" long after the bombers and fighters have been assigned their missions in response to the Axis movement and launch schedule of his responses to the day's raid, and those familiar with that game know how big and long 'that' worthy is.
Instead of fussing over the turn lengths, i would suggest that CV interaction routines may need a few minor tweaks here or there to prevent the typical, carriers react, close to close range and exchange strikes.
Mind you, just a 'minor' tweak. It may seem a bit monotonous at times and even frustrating for would be strategists, but one has to remember how history has often gone in terms of carrier warfare.
With the single (and partial) exception of Midway, that was how all the major carrier battles resolved.....Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, Philippine Sea. Each side spotted the other usually within hours of each other, exchanged strikes and in most cases withdrew to lick wounds.
Midway was a partial exception given some of the extraordinary sequence of events which transpired (though Hiryu was able to strike back) as well as having advanced Intell beforehand
P. Sea's results could also be a partial exeption due to the strength disperity, known such that the IJN commander purposely tried to exploit his range advantage to get in a first strike with a minimized fear of immediate retaliation.
Thats probably the best spot where a minor "tweak" could be added, esp for the IJN side. A more cautious reaction option to minimize risk by utilizing range as a weapon
To prevent abuse, this option should probably come tied with a penalty in the form of an increased chance to miss a target completely or paritally, and/or increased disruption-fatique if it does, the level and scale of which could be tied into the unit experience and leadership ratings.
Finally, as has already been suggested, one should experiment with TF placement to try to set up favorable opportunities. I've been doing this by turning off "react to enemy" to prevent the close range carrier strikes and have been able at times to set up long range strikes.
Course i dont have to bother now, my IJN carriers outnumber the battered AI 4 to 1.
just my 02 cents
