(1) if I understand it correctly would not have the desired effect as it represents a nerf to FACs and fighters.
Rather minor nerf and very natural.
I'd like to see much more lowering of small craft deployment times, though it might be in combination with some racial or game property, that can switch deployment time off, to play with robotic or other strange race, that needs no life intercourse nor much life support.
I would suggest as an alternative that the definition of a FAC (not fighter) be defined in terms of a maximum crew count which can be commanded without a bridge module
That will be just another arbitrary interracial margin we'll have to shut our eyes wide.
(2) would add needless complication as now I cannot just design my fighter craft to a given standard, I have to arbitrarily limit tonnage based on which planet(s) I want to build them on.
I'll say with
fighters you must have nearly no limit for habitable planets, because with this mechanics Steve will have an ability to implement even small tenders (several kt), that will have no need to use shuttles.
Though it will add some complication with logistics, yes. Personally I'd prefer to have an ability to land any ship and use more local (planetary or on-board) loading facilities abstraction (not shuttles), but that's what Steve have made, we need to deal with it.
and also doesn't play neatly with the fact that the game needs a consistent definition of a "fighter" e.g to correctly apply the commander skill for Fighter Combat. As arbitrary as it may seem, having a round tonnage mark for "fighter" definition is good for gameplay and an acceptable abstraction.
I'd say that "fighter" tag can be defined as direct fire* armed mobile (not orbital) craft with no more than 2 crewmen (that's pilot and operator). Give them an ability to lead fighter squadrons (providing them with bonus) - and it will be great.
All heavier crafts will be FACs quite naturally, their tactics and operational requirements have no fundamental difference from corvettes or even frigates.
(*) now it's named often as "beam"despite gauss and railguns are kinetic weapon, not beam
(3) and (4) again place restrictions on the player
Nope. What I proposed to take away from Construction Factories - will be added to Shipbuilding (former Fighter) Factories.
That's not a restriction, that's replacing. Why? Because Fighter Factories are now too much restricted, too specialised (and some players even have no desire to make fighters at all), while Construction Factories are overburden with diverse tasks.
With Construction Factories and Shipbuilding Factories it might be much more balanced.