Thank you both for your responses.
When I said I out expanded every other civ, I did mean individually. I ended up nearly twice the size of my nearest opponent. My starting layout was average and I did not reroll the map to get a favourable start. I was quickly out-producing and out-researching all of my opponents. I will have to start a metaverse game soon on a tougher difficulty.
I am enjoying this game immensely however from what I am gathering there is still tile wastage in the two expansions, though in TA using focus and an all-factory strategy is slightly nerfed.
I actually find that this is one of the most irritating aspects of this game to be honest.
What I am going to say here is probably something which most people here have already realised, but I'm going to say it anyway.
If I build a factory and a research lab on a planet, one would expect that you can run both at maximum capacity at any one time if you can throw enough money at it. I mean I find it a little stupid that you can have a planet of 100 million people with 12 factories, all of which are running at maximum capacity, but if you have six factories and six labs and 10 billion people you can either run only the factories, only the labs or only half the labs and half the factories. Tile utilisation really should be either enabled by population (e.g. one billion per improved tile) or by how much I want to use the tiles by setting the sliders. It should not automatically reduce my factory usage just because I want to use my labs as well.
Planet space is at a premium in galciv 2. How you use your planets is and should be important. Unfortunately the current system seems to benefit specialising your civ. Why? Well if you have 150 tiles spread over 15 same sized planets you can do several things. You can build an even mix of everything on your planets (keeping it simple the only buildings are labs, factories, markets and starports) you have 15 tiles used by starports and lets say 30 labs, 30 factories and the rest (75) markets. At any one time your civ is getting income from 75 markets and can produce 30 units of factory/lab production per turn. Alternatively, you can use an all factory setup and run with 15 starports, 45 factories and 90 markets. In this setup you are gaining 15 factories worth of production and simultaneously having 15 more markets to fuel those factories. Your cost is that you can only produce 25% of your production as science (45 factories * .25 = 11.25 factories worth of science). Now this is close, but obviously less than the 15 labs (average) worth of science that you would have put out in the first scenario. However, you are gaining 18.75 factories worth of production and 15 markets worth of money extra that you would not have in the first scenario.
The above examples were ignoring the maintance costs and treating labs and factories as the same in production, which is not accurate. I also assumed a non-specialised planetary setup - though in a real game it is likely that you would specialise some planets for military production and others for economic output, which would claim another half dozen tiles or so. The other advantages to the all-factory method is that a ) your military is stronger earlier, giving both diplomatic and militaristic advantages (i.e. you can invade your neighbour!) b ) you get far more efficient use of your tiles in that you can run every tile at maximum output per turn and c ) you only need to technologically advance down the production tree instead of both the production and science trees.
Now someone please, correct me if I am mistaken, but if the production output slider only effected the military and social production, while the science slider was handled independently it would fix this efficiency loss and discourage an all-factory strategy (which IMO is a bit of a counter-intuitive strategy and seems cheesey). It would also make the AI with its poor planetary planning a more effective opponent. It seems a bit ridiculous that a totally new player can use this strategy and dominate his first game on tough difficulty.
It also seems to me that having maintanance costs tied to buildings also is a bit counter-intuitive (at least to the civ 4 player in me). A "number of worlds" cost would seem to be more appropriate - giving you incentive to develop your worlds but not overexpand. Though this point is minor - I am content with just not building any buildings for a few turns until I have enough taxes coming in at this stage.