Matt,
I don't really think of it with numbers as you do but I suspect the mix of holes I like would end up pretty close to yours.
A good, fun course needs at least two short Par 4's which you would think of as Par 3.5 and perhaps Doug would consider these as "Par 3.5 of the first type". I doubt that you could build a course with no such holes that I would really like a lot.
I also like holes that are Par 3.5 of the second type, being a long almost unreachable one-shotter. As Doug points out those holes might be slightly shorter and would probably have larger and/or more receptive greens. IMO one such hole per course is nice but more than that is unnecessary unless you're going to have more than the typical four one-shotters.
For my game plenty of holes are Par 4.5, from the 6,500-yard tees they are usually designed as Par 4's and when I move up to the 6,000-yard tees there are often one or two Par 5's that become Par 4.5's.
I also think every course needs at least one Par 5 that almost nobody can reach in two and that is, if anything, a Par 5.5 for all but the strongest players. I'm thinking of the fourteenth at Cuscowilla for example. I know it's hard to do nowadays with the long hitters and long golf balls but few courses have a three-shotter where none of the three shots are trivial and where playing somewhere short of green with the third becomes necessary if you don't execute the tee shot and second shot correctly.
Finally, I wish every course had a postage stamp Par 3. Call it a Par 2.5, even. I'm talking really short where you hit a wedge or knock-down 9-iron but have a small green and either fiendish contours or slopes feeding into bunkers. That's hard to do on a course that gets 50,000 rounds a year but I love those holes.