Eric - thanks for the considered and rational response. Too often Internet discussion forums are full of snark and douche-baggery, so it is refreshing to have a real discussion.
I understand your points and I understand your position on the view of long games done asynchronously. You made me reflect on what it is I find trying for these games. I LIKE Le Havre, Puerto Rico and Caylus, especially when played face to face. So I had to ask myself, what is it that I don't like online? And maybe "don't like" isn't entirely accurate because I still like the games.
I think it comes down to two things: Pace and interface.
But let me start with one of my favorite asynch games, Ascension. Everything about this game kicks ass. Even though it is asynchronous, you can have many games going at once, quickly take your turn and go to the next game. When taking a turn in Ascension I almost always feel like I've accomplished something. Draw a card, put a construct in play, kill a monster and buy a card. Woo! Then you have the turns in which you can play nearly your entire deck. Sweeeet. The interface is also intuitive and easy to understand. I can see what the other players did with the color coding around the cards and recreate their turn by viewing the turn log. So even though it is asynchronous, the pace feels quick and it is easy to see what happened and easy to get around. I don't know how many games you have going but I usually try to have at least half a dozen running at once. I'd do more but I don't want to spam my game center friends with TOO many requests.
The pace of Le Havre is tortuous. "Oh hey, it's my turn.. oh. Feed my workers. Joy." Wait a day. Next turn, "Guess I'll take the fish offer." Wait a day, "Guess I'll go to the Local court, again." Wait a day. "Guess I'll take the Wood offer. Cool, now I can build a building. Wait, where did it go? Hmm, someone built it. Wait, was I going to do that anyway?" And so on. There is a nice 'this is what happened since your last turn' screen when you enter the game but with a game like Le Havre, which has so many options, the length of time between decisions is too much (I think). The other part of Le Havre that kills me is the interface. Now, there are a lot of buildings to know and look at in the game and trying to cram that all on the tablet screen is incredible. I'm constantly tapping other players cards to see what buildings they have. Then if I want to compare a few I have to jump back and forth from one to the other, always waiting for the slow display to splay - and hoping that I don't accidentally mis-tap and have to start the search over again.
Puerto Rico isn't bad. My complaint on their interface is not having a pop up label or something on the buildings already purchased. They all look alike. So on my turn I'll look and think, "Okay, what building is that?" And I have to go to the building screen and match up the building design. The production buildings have the goods symbol so that is nice, and the market has a little +1 or something, but the rest, ugh. That is so much easier in person. Maybe there is display option that I am missing or something? Puerto Rico feels faster than Le Havre, too.
Caylus has a great interface. Probably the best after Ascension. It is just the way the game is designed - asynch play is just slow. Place a guy. Wait. Place a guy. Wait. Place a guy. Wait. With just the two of us, if we each placed one worker per day, how long would the game last? Assuming we place 4 of the 5 on average, that's four days per turn. Then there is the waiting when a player has to decide between goods or choosing to move the Provost. So it would be a week or more per turn. So in this case, the pace of the game causes me to lose interest. However, I can easily see the items that other players have and can somewhat anticipate their moves. The fly out screen is nice and has everything organized very well.
I realize I don't have any solid arguments other than, "I don't care for the pace or interface," but that's all I've got. But then again I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right or that my position is better than anyone else. It is just a personal preference, I guess. You are correct in that there is a small investment of time each day for these long games, and if that allows a person to really understand the game then it is worth it. For me, in a game like Le Havre I might lose interest in the game if it takes too long because after three weeks I might have forgotten what my initial strategy was. So instead of sticking to a plan, now I am wondering what it was past BHL was up to and cursing him for getting current BHL into a never ending cycle of taking loans and heading to the local court.
However, all that being said, I'm not about to stop playing these games asynchronously. As you say, it eliminates the wait at the table for another player to think about his or her move. It also removes all the fiddly stuff. I do enjoy the social aspect of sitting at the table and shootin' the shit and for me, gaming is mostly about the social side and playing to have fun and not winning (as evidenced by my win / loss record). If it was fun, it was a win (and this could be a whole other thread about self-selection and group dynamics and meta-gaming [what do you mean I like to do that? ha!] and a slew of other things that constitute "fun" and so on).
At any rate, just my two cents.