I'm not sure I really like the 0 movement thing (reminds me of the annoying Nova emplaced guns that I hate) - imagine building a bunch, your enemy warps in, and you can't even use them if you don't have transports around. I would prefer to re-balance them to be a weaker supplementary unit. That is, you wouldn't make up the crux of any elite force with them because even a frigate would be better to include in that slot. I'm not opposed to "super" fighter/bombers that are expensive, take a while to build, and are good units - but we would still enter the mobility dilemma similar to what happens in Nova. I do think archangels are the superior unit to dreadnoughts in Nova (especially since dreadnoughts take so long to build and are exceedingly expensive), but I also like that they make exotica a very valuable commodity, are a late-game unit, and not to mention dreadnoughts can wipe out planetary defenses while archangels can't.
We could always make a house rule that you cannot use non-carriers to transport bombers/fighters to other planets, but of course that'd be up to a player's honor to abide by and is just another rule to remember. I've played in one EFS game where you were allowed to transport bombers/fighters with non-carriers, but you weren't allowed to attack with them the same turn they were transported (which is pretty easy for others to verify). I would love for the remake to distinguish between space carrier valid cargo, and other valid cargo in freighters and haulers. If carriers were expensive but were the only unit that could transport fighters/bombers, we could still allow for them to have high levels of mobility without them being overpowered or becoming marginalized.
Even though I've lost more to fighters/bombers than anyone else (well, I didn't see the Al Malik battles or losses), I'd prefer to leave the balance as-is in this game, fighters/bombers/relics and all. I'm a bigger advocate against the super power of relics than I am the incredible value of charioteer 1 turn fighter/bombers, though I think they both need reworking. I don't think we'll see ONLY fighters/bombers, after all, you do need cruisers/dreadnoughts to bombard, and carriers enhance fighters. I'm starting to believe there is very little reason, if any, to build frigates and destroyers. It's highly unlikely I would even bother with dreadnoughts. In fact, my suspicion is that they wouldn't even beat a stack of cruisers. Compare their stats:
For 4 turns and 15 gems:4 agility, 70 armor, 4/80 ranged, 5/70 direct, 4/40 close
For 5 turns and 20 gems: 3 agility, 90 armor, 4/90 ranged, 5/80 direct
Trading 1 agility for 20 armor, and 4/40 close (more rounds of combat here) for just a drop in 10 strength in the other two phases. You could also have 5 cruisers to 4 dreadnoughts in the time they take. Why would I even want a dreadnought over a cruiser? Why would I want a frigate over two bombers, or a destroyer over three? I definitely see a value for fighters, bombers, cruisers and carriers in our current balance. Not convinced the other are worth the time and resources.
Besides the combat balance, I've been really impressed with this mod's unit selection, house-specific flares, and galaxy layout. I do have to say I don't like the whole spamming of low level + firebird units and high maintenance costs. It honestly just feels like a mechanic for ultra micromanagement. Who really wants to think about regularly building all these firebird producing units, and if they really wanted to min/max, moving them across entire planets to safer and more protected regions. EFS is already heavy on micromanagement, this mechanic is one that even I can rarely be bothered to take full advantage of.