The only way to speed that up is to rush-build the steps along the way.

If a planet is already developed enough that improvements are down to 1 turn each, you just have to be patient.

I see your point in late game; except my planets are upgraded considering the are smaller than two. But for most of the game gaining extra manufacturing by going through all the stages, which usually cost multiple turns, and are usually the same amount of turns. But if you are not into maximising game play while cutting down on micromanagement in good ways I kind of see your point. In actuality you lose out on production your way. Maybe this could be a global, not a local option.

If we are talking about upgrading each level of improvement that wasn't to keep you from having super worlds of what I remember from the beginnings of this idea it was to . you from wasting production.

Now if you are talking about teraforming everything. I would think it is because the Ai doesn't handle it well. The Ai could handle this better with a comparison, and a loop class added, but the usual Ai programming doesn't take advantage of the Ai language structure, but it is more systematical.  I guess the logic of super planets plays a part here.

I also place my science on very slow.

Agreed that research is too easy to build up.  I hope they are finding ways to limit that.  I am also hearing an interesting argument to make Starbases consume one constructor point per turn until they are used up, so as to keep consistent. 10 constructor modules at once is indeed out of pace with the rest of the game.

Pacing in this context is not about the game pacing controls (which definitely don't control the research escalation!), but the idea that things happen over time, such as one-per-turn limits in places, or asteroid mines taking 3 turns to complete, etc.  Galciv seems to be about processes and cumulative events more than quick changes.  There are exceptions, things that can improve the entire empire dramatically and immediately, (Supportive Population can transform my struggling early empires.), but keeping them rare makes them feel like accomplishments.

Different people and teams have differing approaches to game design.  I would put lots more limits and challenges in than Stardock does, myself, but that is why they don't hire me to design games, isn't it?  

You could in galciv2 skip the previous upgrades it required more micromanagement if wanted to be the most efficient.

Indeed. I think this point applies to Precursor Relics as well. Early in a game, 5 or 10 percent boosts to morale, research, or income can make a big difference. Even in later games, I can get a real sense of a Big Thing Happening when I roll out a new precursor research tech to existing starbases.

I'd much rather see the AIs get with the starbase program than to have them nerfed more. Getting the logistics together to pile ten (or twenty!) constructor modules on a single spot is not the same as simply throwing around BC to rush-build a super planet. This would be even 'more true' if they would let us spend constructors to add HP to a base.

But then I'm in some weird fringe group (possibly 1-member strong) and want to see an expansion that supports an entirely space-based culture and tech paths for those spawned in gravity wells to grow up and out of that soupy old star system scene. Massive constructor investment should enable the creation of planet-analogs that hold large populations and improvements to their production, health, et cetera. But I digress with an old saw...