I like the range and speed challenge of the gigantic map. I run loose clusters, abundant habitable planets, abundant number of planets, and uncommon stars. Those settings maximize that challenge while keeping habitable planet numbers around 100-150. I enjoy it, although you are right, there's a lot of waiting when your best ships have move numbers pushing 70.

It's the number of habitable planets in the universe that loads the CPU. You can max out your processor on a large map if you run everything on abundant. Doing that with a gigantic map would really choke the CPU. Of course, you wouldn't want to play a game like that. Even if your system could handle the load, it would be more difficult than fun to manage that many resources.

If an "insane" map size was in the game, I'd play it. Just have to go from uncommon to rare stars.

I play gigantic ( 18x18 ) maps and find them plenty large but I wouldn't mind trying larger maps.

Would sort of like to have rectangular maps too, where we specify lenght and width.

Another neat opttion would be having wrap around where left side meets right side and top meets bottom. like the stars are distributed spherically.

Oh man I cannot imagine insane galaxy .. And I don't think It's needed for most of the game users. But anyway If anyone wanted it, then he can use a custom map I think.

Actually, I was thinking the next step up in engines should be jump engines. They'd take up a huge amount of space, but you can use them to literally bypass small regions of space. Either that or them allow Stargates to be built on Insane-sized maps.

In any case, I love the idea. Hopefully, a map so huge you have to zoom in to get starter territories being larger than dots.

I think the engines in the game do jump. Think about it, modern space shuttles would take several lifetimes to get to pluto, do you think it would be possible to fly past dozens of solar systems in less than a year without bending space in that amount of time?

A lot of people who play mainly giantic maps say the game is easy, I agree, the bigger the map, the easier it is to win. I would think even bigger maps would be no challenge at all, just a matter of patience.

I would love to be able to set an arbitrarily large map. If it slows the game down, that's my problem - I'm planning to build an E6600 rig with 2Gb or even 4Gb this autumn... But the limiting factor seems to be how the AI handles large maps; as Richrf points out in #31.

My idea of a pefect galciv map is nicely described in Iain M Bank's Player Of Games when the protagonist sees the game board for the first time. If I was King Of The World, then Stardock's next announcement would be "Azad Demo for download" ;o)

still havent incressed map size abilty with expasion it seems

I would love a size which is between large and huge.Large seems to me the best setting to enjoy the game, but larger maps whil become overwhelming are also very fun.

Ideally you'd be able to specify how many sectors square a map was. I don't have an interest in any map larger than "huge," honestly, but would love some sizes inbetween huge and large. It could go up to the limit of ones computer's capabilities, for those that want to start a game now and finish it when GalCiv3 comes out.