Don't have any problem with the speed-reduction, since the fastest ships I built only reached a speed of 15.
I'm only playing gigantic maps and it may take some time for my speed 10 traders to reach their destiniy but well that's one of the reasons I'm playing gigantic.

So I probably couldn't care less about a speed reduction.

Personally, when I made the switch from large to huge maps, I found the huge maps to be significantly more difficult. Even more so than the switch from medium to large. The leverage supplied by fast ships is not as destabilizing in a huge map as it is in the smaller maps. I have since found additional other ways of compensating and have become more skilled at setting up massive pre-planned blitzes (Hint: Setup all your ships outside AI space or in "dead zones" inside his space and blitz your ships into position, you will probably get them all placed before the AI declares war on you).

I think players who have "beaten" the game on smaller maps have tended to gravitate up to larger maps in order to increase the difficulty and points (if you are playing metaverse). At least I have...

I agree with almost everything Mumble said above. It should be noted that the developers have said previously that they do not play large maps. They seem to think that those beating large maps are doing things that aren't relevant to smaller maps. I have played medium (25-30 planets) to huge maps (268 planets max) and completely disagree with this. Most techniques used on large maps are even more effective on smaller ones. If I ever decide to move from huge/250 planets up to gigantic/500 planets I expect the game to become more difficult and I am not sure why the developers assume otherwise.

I think people tend to exaggerate the importance of dramatically fast ships. At the end of my last huge game, my transports and warships were running at speed 25 (I believe, running from memory) and that was plenty fast to blitz the computer. The thing here is that the human player is smart enough to put multiple engines on a single ship and gain a speed advantage, while the computer doesn't. Anytime you get ~+5 or more speed on the computer, speed becomes decisive. It doesn't have to be dramatic, just significant. Some nerfing of the engines will only slow this down. To handicap the game sufficiently to stop a human from gaining this advantage would probably wreck the game. It will require a better AI, or something creative like the Yor super-ability.

And back on the main thread, the Yor super-ability seems like a reasonable way to stall out this tactic and would be acceptable to me on my current huge maps, although having it scale slightly based on map size might make sense. AKA something like 2 squares on tiny and 7 squares on gigantic.

So is there any hope for said engine changes in vanilla GC2 ?

I have personally been wishing for some change here for a long long time. I hope the end result isn't the AI moving even slower though...

One further suggestion for dealing with the one-turn wars that doesn't involve a total nerf of engines:

The problem isn't so much with warships as it is with transports. Currently troop transports can be built to far outstrip the speed of viable warships. I suggest reducing the hull capacity of freighters (possibly in conjunction with an increase in engine size, and a minor decrease in the size of troop, and colony modules to balance out the effect) so that we can't just throw on two advanced troop modules and fill the rest of the hull with engines.

This works. If you put your troop mods on cargo hulls. I prefer to full populate a planet when taking over so my transports carry 10 - 15 Billion troops. Not on cargo hulls though.

I play on Gigantic galaxies my ships usually max out around 12-15 I prefer to put more guns/armor on my ships and actually fight the enemy... Yes it takes awhile if your trying to go from one side of the galaxy to the other but thats one of the things that makes it feel GIGANTIC.

I say just limit each ship to 3-4 engines each.

I agree that the simplest solution is cap the number of engines. No other adjustment would be needed. Cap it at 4 engines per ship max. I say 4 instead of 3 because I like my ship designs to appear balanced and there are a number of hulls that placing 3 engines is goofy. Two on the left and one on the right makes the ship look like it can only travel in circles.

And while you at it. It would be nice to alter either the large hull of cargo hull size so that upgrades can't be crossed over. Make the large a 60, or the cargo a 50.

There is one big problem with capping engine's in my opinion: Constructors. If you have a vast array of starbases, say economic starbase, that you keep updated as tech develops, it's REALLY FRUSTRATING using slow constructors to do the maintainance. I often make contructors with as many engines as possible so i can get them to a starbase in one turn so i don't have to worry about what constructor of 150 on the board is going to what starbase, and what starbase still needs upgrading, etc... etc...

Whilst I read the comments with interest re the scaling of speed on Gigantic, I have a feeling that may not be feasible. Frogboy's comment was that the sheer mechanics of AI programming and giving them the ability to predict and react diminishes after a turn speed of 8 or 9, as the sheer computing power required to number crunch the vastly increased alternate paths/threats above 8 or 9 turns does not become credible with home PCs.

At the end of the day, I personaly dont mind much providing there is a clear obvious balance to the player - to suddenly go from 80 parsecs and come to a screeming halt at 3 parsecs is too disruptive to the game flow. However if the base speed was much lower at say - 15-20 parsecs then it would be fine.

All this is a question of perception and balance, we tend to comment on what we see as Gigantic, if however speeds were reduced and smaller maps used, it would still have the same feel of "gigantic".

Its a question of overall balance of speed versus map size, and thats difficult for us to comment on definitively when we are unaware of the practical boundaries of AI computing options each turn. I have a feeling its also difficult at the Stardock end, as computer power continues its inexorable rise up the Richter scale of Moore's Law (equals cpu power doubling every 18 months). The latter has a profound effect on solutions as faster cpu's during the game's projected life means more ability for the AI to number crunch in an acceptable time frame, and therefore more features are feasible.

Bottom line, I personally am well content to leave it to the Stardock Devs to fix the inevitable compromise - they have done us proud to date, no reason they wont in future.

Regards
Zy

Deploy aboard an Aircraft Carrier.

You said Carrier... Muhahaha...

Seriously though, I am not going to assume, but if you are with the U.S. Navy sir,
Thank you for your service to our country.   

I was deployed with the U.S Army to Camp Sears Korea (110 active duty members on a small base 15km from the DMZ ) for a year, so I know a little of what you are going through. Sometimes you have a lot of time to kill. Personally I would rather spend that time killing Torians instead of being them... Just giving you a hard time hehe.   

I personally like the Yor ability that has been described for DA. I think it is a good thing that each race has its own super ability. Makes the game that much more interesting to me.

The ideas that are flying around here about speed are really good as well.

Limiting 4 engines per hull was a good one, but to take that one step further maybe each hull type could have a limit on engines instead. An example would be a tiny hull has 1, a small 2, a medium 3, and large and above 4. I am sure this idea has been thought of and probably written about before, just thought I would throw it back out there.

Making the movement of ships relevant to galaxy size is also a good idea. Maybe even doing the same thing with the Yor super ability if people find that it is to over powering. Example, on Tiny maps 3 parsecs per turn, on small 4, on medium 6, so on and so forth. I haven't really done the math so I do not know the exact numbers. Just a thought.

The size of the actual troop and cargo components was also a good idea, being the size would end up limiting the space for engines. Maybe reducing the size for the constructor component along with the fore mentioned would off set this and allow for faster construction ships.

I think that all the Ideas above, combined, might put Mr. Frog, where he wanted to be with the speed issue. The speed "cheese" would be limited and those who want to go faster would be fined pretty heavily. Couple this with the what Mr. Frog is talking about implementing, with the cost and size of engines, and the issue would be licked.

As for me, whatever challenges are thrown at me, I will adapt. Leave it alone, or change it, matters not to me.

The game was designed around the assumption that ships would top out at speeds of around 6 to 8 moves per turn. That means the AI was designed looking for ships that might be getting tops in that area.

While I can see your point about the AI, huge and gigantic maps are going to become painful to play painful to play if ships are limited to <10 moves. And god help you if the Yor are between you and your oponent. I can see the Yor being my first target in every game unless they are off to the side of the map or otherwise isolated.

And god help you if the Yor are between you and your oponent. I can see the Yor being my first target in every game unless they are off to the side of the map or otherwise isolated.

If you target every opponent with a super-ability that pisses you off, you're going to find 9 targets.

And god help you if the Yor are between you and your opponent.

You can always *be* the Yor.   

There are 2 factors to the "blitz cheese" approach.
First is the speed, which I would really miss on Gigantic maps. Both sides have valid points. I tend to lean toward no speed limit, the greater speeds help play-ability of the larger maps. If you lived in such a galaxy I don't think it unreasonable that a race might figure out how to go that fast.
The second part of this cheese is the attack. Right now, that 50+ speed ship could, in theory, could attack an enemy 50+ times. Another approach would be to limit the ability to attack to once per turn. If you want to attack multiple times, maybe you need to buy a special module/s to allow that, Attack Computer 1, 2, 3 for ex.
Everyone's making good points, but I think the attack component is an important part of this problem.

For god sake everyone needs to stop calling fast ships "cheese". IF the game was correctly balanced, those fast ships wouldn't match up well against whatever ships the AI is using that don't have all those engines.

The problem I'd have with simply limiting engines would be scout ships and freighters. They should be fast. I'd rather see a diminishing returns approach.

A more complex way to go would be to scale speed according to how much of the overall space you use on the ship. (so if you load it up with guns/defense, it'll be a pig)

Another point is that miniturization is key to getting fast ships. It probably needs some tweaking as well.