A 'no nerfs now' policy inevitably gives you games like Payday 2 which are extraordinarily hostile to new players, or Siege to a lesser degree with how much recoil has been toned down across all guns.
King kinda have a shotgun, can take down any piece of the board in any direction with a single move but have short range. Bishop and tower are the snipers: attack from distance in a straight line. Knight is the trick weapon allowing to attack from unconventional positions and queen is the glass
its better a mix of both, neither absolute nerfing or absolute buffing, since both absolutes will end suffering the same kind of issues, both will end making the game feel bland and boring
Oh, btw, "Queen" a purely European change to the game made when it was brought there. In the original game this figure was known as "ferzin" or "ferz" (basically vizier) and was, obviously, male. So that for lolz comment on the 3rd panel is surprisingly legit.
RTS games used to be my 3rd favourite genre in the 90s, but i dropped out completely in mid-2000s when, thanks to the rise of cyber sport, they became all about perfect balance for multiplayer, and became just dull almost symmetrical recyclings of the same unit archetypes...
Devs tell each other they need to balance mechanics. Players ask for balance because it sounds fair. Nerfs are the way balance happens, because its easier to cut back rather than improving lower tier classes. Honestly? It should happen the other way. Boost the bottom feeders. Makes things more fun.
Wait, I though this was a comedy website, not a documentary! Seriously, though; yeah. This is what happens. Crowfall was an exact victim of this sort of thing. I loved the early beta. The final release was bland cow plop.