The beauty of it is, there in no "ideal" formula, even though your 13-2-3 formula seems about right to me on most sites. Obvioulsy, if a site allows it, you put in a few more heroic holes and given that there is a choice, the course is none the worse for wear!
But, generally I think most gca's would agree that the angle hazard as described would be both more strategic and more in play for all levels of player than the either-or scenario and thus, a better overall concept. (as is angled fw)
The other thing to consider is that each shot, and not just holes, can be penal, heroic, or strategic. Good design considers the relationship of the shot. In most cases, the fw is average width with a preferred side, the classic strategy. But, on some long par 4 holes, for example, I put in a narrow, bunkered fw, but make the approach shot a little easier to reward the player who negotiates the narrow fw on the tee shot. And, to just keep the hole from being too darn tough. Similarly, if the fw is hazardless, the green might be a little harder to attain or to putt.
So, do we "classify" those holes as penal or strategic because one shot or the other is penal? The design of the fw or green probably introduces strategy (bomb it on the wide fw or lay back on the pinched one) Now, if the fw was pinched and the green well bunkered, then there would be no doubt that it would be a penal hole..