I think he means circling a map and permitting a factory to build while you cruise around.
If a player REALLY wants to sped that much time accumulating literally thousands of upgrade modules, you don't think we should let them? It isn't a multiplayer or competitive game, where ensuring that players had differing capabilities would be crucial to gameplay. If a player decides they want to play one game for weeks to accomplish things that only they really understand, I say, let them.
If someone is dead-set upon upgrading everything to it's maximum potential, right now, it's within reach even with only three levels to play in. Projectile cannons start at 8, and I believe upgrade cost multiplies by 0.5 per upgrade? Upgrading a projectile cannon to its' maximum potential now requires a total of 56 upgrade modules. Energy cannons which start at (I think?) 6 per upgrade require 42. On both of these, fire rate is the best upgrade, and damage/range are the only other upgrade that isn't counter-productive.
If all upgrades are beneficial, (even if balanced by other setbacks,) for a fleet of projectile cannons you're paying around 252 upgrade modules per gun for a minimunm of 4 guns, with a minimum cost of 1008 and a maximum of 3276 upgrade modules required per fleet, excluding fighter bays and small guns. I know you're usually going to include a shieldbreaker, but this is a cost-analysis, not a gammeplay guide.
Just because the weapon's peak potential is always the same, doesn't make the process of reaching it a formula. No choice is a right or wrong choice, (except the very last upgrade,) because you always have to trade off against not gaining other benefits and the rising costs of upgrades. It might be formulaic in terms of player interaction if upgrade modules were easy to obtain, and no thought had to be spent in the process of upgrading each gun to its maximum, but this isn't the case.
