The lvl cap needs to either be raised to 20 or there needs to be a fusion of the fuel/supplies skill into 1.They are just too good to pass up and honestly make the game more hassle free/way less tedious.
There are players who do pass them up on some runs. For me, the end game can be reached and beaten on an Industry 5 + 10 other skills build. The level cap is mostly an arbitrary limit to make different campaign runs feel different. If you run the same campaign with essentially the same skills every time, I find them less interesting to replay. Typically, the argument to raise the level cap would be that the end game is too hard on a 15 skill point budget. It doesn't help you early or mid-game, but comes into play only for the hardest challenges at the end.
I think 16-19 is a bad number of skill points since it makes getting 4 level 5's in two trees possible (8+8+extra), but not 4 level 5's in 4 different trees (which requires a full 20). Right now, doing 3 different trees seems reasonable. 16-19 suddenly means taking top skills from only two trees is far more attractive, in some sense reducing diversity due to efficiency of getting four tier 5 skills instead of only 3.
Are people finding end game threats such as <Redacted> and <Super Redacted> too hard to deal with such that 1-5 more skills would be the deciding factor in success? That would be a stronger argument, at least to me.
As for merging, if the skills already are too good, then merging them to make them better makes them would seem to make that skill even more mandatory. Which seems counter to what an interesting and diverse skill tree should provide. If the game is too tedious (which is not clear to me that it is, but certainly different players will have different tolerances and likes in their campaign layer), then I'd suggest advocating that the tedium be addressed at the root cause, as opposed to making mandatory quality of life skills.
On the other hand, arguing the skills are too weak might justify their merger. As it is, you can get roughly the same fleet performance by adding an additional two destroyer tankers and a cargo cruiser to your fleet line up. So in the end, it saves you credits, both in initial outlay and over time, but it doesn't strike me as game breaking savings.
TBH I believe the supply skill needs a nerf, it doubles almost any non-capital mass fleets' operational time between docking ports
That does assume you're not engaging in combat, recovering ships, or getting hit by hyperspace storms. CR restoration from 0% is unaffected by Makeshift Equipment for example, and can be multiple months equivalent. At the end of the day, for a 100 DP fleet, you're talking about a difference of 50 supplies per month between having the skill or not. So lets say my typical exploration fleet is 100 DP, and I expect to stay out for a full cycle. My monthly costs (ignoring all CR restoration) will add up to either 1200 (no skill) or 600 supplies (with skill). The difference is a little more than a single destroyer's cargo capacity. A single Buffalo can provide 400*1.3=520 cargo capacity at an additional cost of 3 supplies per month. Adding a single Colossus potentially adds 1170 cargo capacity. So in terms of operational time between docking ports, a Colossus might be considered about twice as good as the skill, assuming you typically stay out for a full cycle between stopping at ports.
What it does do is save you probably 5,000 credits plus whatever fuel, crew, and supplies costs for the additional logistic ship. Call it 10,000 difference a month, plus the initial ship cost of 25,000-60,000 depending on which ship and how you buy it, or potentially 0 if you scavenge it. It's nice, but nothing that strikes me as game breaking or absolutely must have.
