days per turn vs IJ 'super-planning'

[dasboot1960]

Having recently been exposed to some pretty astounding IJ successes, I'm curious about opinions on the effect of multi-day turns on Japanese master strokes. If it's not obvious, I am referring to PvP, not AI games. Are multiday turns any restraint to IJ super-aggressiveness? Any feedback out there? Interested in any/all opinions. Thanks!

[LargeSlowTarget]

Multi-day-turns do not give any inherent advantage or disadvantage to the Japanese side - the advantages / disadvantages of such turns work for both sides.

I'd say multi-day-turns tend to inject more caution into both sides because of the reduced ability to react to unforeseen events.

With multi-day-turns it is easier to stage surprise hit-and-run-raids in areas covered by LR naval search - an attacker can set-up his hitherto undetected forces to approach a target on Day 1 at high speed, hit it on Day 2 and start to retire from a target the same day. The defender's naval search may see the attacking force coming on Day 1, but cannot react to it and has to accept being hit on Day 2 without being able to prepare for it by increasing CAP or to scatter and flee for example.
The more days per turn, the deeper into the hinterlands such a surprise raid may go.
With this in mind, the defender will be less inclined to keep juicy targets at frontline bases which are at risk of such surprise raids, or if it is necessary, he will provide a robust defence of the threatened base(s).

Now, if the defender is prepared for the eventuality of a surprise raid, it is no longer a surprise raid - it is the attacking force which might be surprised by the ferocity of the resistance and may suffer heavy losses for little to show for.
The attacking force may be able to detect the defender's trap on the way in on Day 1 (through recon / naval search), but cannot react to it in order to call off the attack of Day 2 - and thus has to accept taking losses against an alert defender on Day 2.
So the attacking side may think twice before launching such a risky operation.

In short, multi-day-turns tend to raise the stakes in the game of outguessing / surprising your enemy and getting good DLs where needed.

[PaxMondo]

This is a pretty deep question. For me it all hinges upon the Intel world. In this game, the allies get great "under the hood" intel. Troop deployments, TF destinations, etc. The IJ are able to build and deploy FAR more recon units, and so CAN enjoy more recon results. Both sides are about equal on NavSearch, although the IJ could also put more out there as well. But it is real $$$$, the IJ is fielding 4E patrols against the best patrol craft ever: the 2E Catalina.

As LST says, multi day turns put a lot more guess work into things. But my perception is that recon is hit harder than the allied intel. It has to do with timeframe: the allies intel looks several days into the future, sometimes weeks. It will see a TF going from Tokyo to Bangkok. Recon/NavSearch will never give you that, you only see the TF when it is 2 days or so from Bangkok. As LST notes, you can assemble a strike 2.5 days out from the target, and then send it in. It will hit before you can react. On the allied side, there is a chance that the assembly will be noted in their intel report ... the IJ won't get that.

So, to address the OP's question: will 2 day turns hinder the IJ aggressiveness? Maybe initially, but once the player gets used to it, nill effect on his early aggressiveness. What it will hinder is his defense in the mid and late game. The allies will enjoy an advantage when they start to counter-attack.

I've tried 2, 3 and 4 day games in the past and they are not for me. The problem is that my turns take way too long. Given the HUGE downside of missing even the smallest thing with multiday turns, it takes me hours to finish a turn. That isn't much fun for me.

I think the best leveling option is "Realistic RnD". Force the IJ player to keep RnD factories RnD until they become production and once they do, they cannot go back to RnD. They can still warp the game, BUT it costs them a lot more supply (1M-2M) to do it, and as we have seen in a number AAR's when the IJ does that (blow a huge amount of supply in the early/mid game), all the allies have to do is step back, don't cede the West Coast or Karachi, create the DeathStar, and when the IJ economy implodes in late 43/early 44 from supply shortages start your move to Tokyo. The best news about this is if the IJ doesn't quit, the allied player will get to play with all of his really cool late war toys.

[dasboot1960]

Thanks to you both. My question was definitely slanted toward the effects on IJ aggression. You off-handedly hit my nail squarely in your closing PaxMondo. The best strategy, whether early game as IJ or later as Ally appears identical. The lesser IJ Deathstar early vs the greater Allied Deathstar later. I'm disappointed in finding that I am not cut-out emotionally or as a gamer to spend 2-3 years of my actual lifetime sitting back and taking it as the allies, but I know what I would do as Japan... and could not expect less of any other. It is a game, and to be won. Pondering sigh here.

[Sardaukar]

My experience is that best are 2-day turns.

It is compromise between fast game and control. And it indeed slows the pace of game a bit, but I only play vs. AI...so...