Balance. Why do we need it?

[Fizban]

We talked about that already:

You haven't addressed anything I said? Other than anti-magic by pointing out options that are inferior to actually having a Fighter.

Here are some more common scenarios where Fighters fall flat:.

Swarms are fought with torches and the alchemical weapons you're going on about, things that destroy your gear are about as rare as those with various forms of antimagic and are also countered by buying the right gear, big dumb monsters are fought with bows, status effects are the cleric's job (part of that whole teamwork thing you're ignoring), fighting while moving through forced skill checks is way more rare and yet is still accomplished by using a bow instead of moving or caster teamwork, mobile targets can be shot with bows, and "spellcasters" (oh what a laughably vague foe that is) are handled in whatever way is most expedient- I assume you're whining about range, to which may I suggest shooting them with a bow while they're trying to cast, or possibly letting the spellcasting part of your team deal with the magic?

Seriously, I'm not going back and forth on this with you (not further anyway)- though the post where I pre-empted it was actually quoting ryu. I don't care about your list of anti-fighter scenarios any more than you would care about my list of anti-caster scenarios (there's only one anyway: any number of encounters or hazards you didn't expect). The only thing that matters is what guidance the books actually give for encounter creation and game balance, and those are solidly on my side. Not the least of which because the DMG is quite clear about the DM's job to make the game work, in spite of the rules and the players themselves when necessary.

Once again, just because your metagame is about bad fighters getting screwed while wizards are never pushed outside their comfort zone, doesn't mean it's supported by the rules. There are pages and pages, reams of evidence showing the designers intent for the Fighter and encounter design and party composition and teamwork, and zero for the idea that they should be directly compared in "contributing to combat" or be considered directly interchangeable, spellcasters and non-spellcasters being even moreso called out as unequal. The DMG has a number of examples of problems that are harder to deal with without certain classes. Complete Arcane says straight up that a game full of spellcasters is a massive challenge for the DM, while Complete Warrior says that a low-spellcaster campaign is hard mode. PHB2 spells out the standard party. This isn't some thing the designers somehow missed, it's fully intentional.

If your metagame makes some classes useless, it's because your group has a metagame that makes those classes useless. I suggest not playing those classes when in that metagame, while respecting the fact that you're playing the game outside of the standard expectations. Looking back, you say you need balance because it's less work for you: sorry mate, but balancing optimized and/or caster heavy parties in DnD 3.5 is not a low-effort deal.