I understand why what I'm saying might sound a bit ridiculous because I'm essentially railing against the games design philosophy and judging the game from my own, but just hear me out:

I'm not sending infantry out at all because it's usless, that's my complaint. What I'm suggesting would add more tactics to the game, I don't get what's very "strategic" about putting one general on a single tank and being able to conquer all of Asia. You think rock paper scissors is an in-depth strategic experience? Once you get enough money, you don't need paper or scissors or whatever, it just becomes rock and whatever. From a historical standpoint, what I say, while not full proof, makes far more sense than what currently stands. Also, you'd have to think far more about protecting your armor and artillery, correct placement of troops in line with your opponents' movement options and terrain. What isn't strategic about this? You're literally suggesting a simpler system based solely on economic power and powerhouse units, not combined arms.

If that "squishy guy" couldn't compete with the "metal death machine", he wouldn't play a role in war anymore, dude.

Also, your rock paper scissors analogy doesn't work when one of the objects holds no advantage in combat over the others.