gajopI think that's a valid concern. My response would be that these mechanics, while being relatively small in power level, can be skillfully exploited/played around, rewarding creativity. I'm not sure about Quant's rule, since you would be building on the factory's strength while also mitigating a weakness. Yes it would make facs technically more general, but paradoxically, this would be through further specialisation. This would not result in homogenisation of units or gameplay (except arguably in the defensive use cases), and would grow the individual identities of the factories.
My thinking is that, with many other games, I find mastery to be in expert use of the smaller elements to accrue advantages. The clearest example I can think of is Magic: the Gathering, where lands that do even a small amount more than basic are consistently in very high demand. It's very satisfying to swing the course of a game with a seemingly meaningless ability.
If such a thing were implemented, abilities that can be used defensively would need to be very carefully balanced to prevent them overshadowing statics.
SprungI had no idea that's how it worked. So I can Que pyros to jump up cliffs from production?
OrfeliusIf there was a good transformation animation I could get behind that. Take the price down by 500 and have you sacrifice the factory? This would also prevent team krow rush strategies though, which, depending on your opinion on those, could be an upside or a downside. I personally find krow rushes unfun unless I'm the dude who ends up with a krow. It makes one team do nothing with the exception of the krow pilot, and forces the other team to deal with krow instead of playing the game they wanted. Building dedicated AA is no fun at all.