Harold II and Richard I were both killed by arrows from common archers.

Contemporary aircraft carriers have to be used very carefully and escorted into battle by a flotilla of destroyers and frigates, because they're powerful but a very high value target that can't adequately defend themselves from guided missiles.

...of course, you could just play Go, where every piece is equal before it is placed on the board.

of course, you could just play Go

Indeed, this is my usual solution to my dislike of chess :-)

And to answer the rest:

It did occur to me when I was writing my rant that the chess model might apply rather better in low-tech battles, when the high-value units were kings rather than tanks. Though kings are rather a special case anyway, since they don't exactly have high destructive power to go with their high value and vulnerability.

As for aircraft carriers, well, yes; even in Starcraft you get some units whose direct defensive capability is low because they have some other use. Science vessels spring to mind, as do Dark Archons and Zerg Queens. But they tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

The problem with *Craft/Age of * /Command and Conquer style RTS games is that to some extent, strategy gives way to mob warfare. "homever has the largest number of grunts to send into battle and who has the biggest production might just be the wiener.

True, although the way you get superior production in the first place is by applying strategy to get more resource expansions than your opponent; send forces to a mineral area too late and the opponent will already be entrenched, but send them too early and they won't be able to hold on to the region when they get there.

I always have/had trouble with that aspect of it, so I make up for it by hiding single units all over the place in the endgame so my opponent gives up. :)