The options you listed need not be mutually exclusive. You could for instance use railgun type launchers to accelerate bombs, missiles, drones and/or fighters (like a carrier launch rail) so they require less fuel (ie, only maneuvering jets) to intercept and track the target. Only fighters would really need fuel for the return trip.

Also you left out some extremely important offensive systems. In future space warfare the deadliest weapons will probably be electronic warfare systems. You don't have to physically damage a spacecraft to win an engagement, you only need to disable or even avoid it. EWS can potentially do that at the longest distance since it only requires a communications channel and a ship subsystem that accepts any form of remote command codes. It's unlikely a ship wouldn't be remotely operable since it would be the fleet admirals' first line of defense against rogue captains and insurrections. Many ship systems would likely be run by AI and attacking/confusing/crashing the AI minds would be a basic first line of attack (it essentially costs you nothing to try). On a more low-tech level you have basic jamming and EMP weapons. In all cases you're not brutishly trying to bash your way through metal and kill meatbags when your enemys' most valuable systems are fragile circuits.

Also in space there's no collateral damage or pollution to worry about (unless you're stealing the ship itself) so presumably neutron bombs, gamma rays are other radiation weapons are all fair game. Since there's no shielding tech any radiation that penetrates metal is going to cause a world of hurt for the systems and crew aboard.

And finally nanobots are almost within our technology capabilities today. In 200 years it isn't unfeasible that you could launch canisters filled with swarms of tiny robots that "eat" materials used in circuits. These could really make a mess even without magical replication capabilities. One "bug" in a critical enemy system and it's game over.