It's interesting that most of the rationales center around the concept of "I am not familiar with the decision space for the players". That makes sense, since nobody is an expert in everything.
A few of them go on to posit an extremely simple decision space (or a non-decision space) for some games. I would assume that those games don't actually work like that. For example, the WWII big battles I called out probably have lots of strategic depth to the decision making. I just don't know what it is, so I can't see it, can't relate to it, and thus don't form an interest in it.
So … steampunk. A few people singled that one out. Here's my (not THE) cut on steampunk. Wargaming steampunk (as opposed to other activities like "Steampunk cosplay is awesome because I think I look pretty in a Victorian waistcoat.") provides a rational basis (the base assumptions of the genre, which are fictional) for the coexistence of standoff ranged weapons and close combat to be relative peers in the warfighting space.
This actually happened in the late 1800's, but by the early 1900's we had the transition to "Third Generation Warfare" or "Modern Trench Warfare" where standoff ranged combat had domination, exemplified by the change in combat from the beginning to the end of WWI.
Steampunk expands the possibilities for that transition period. It also preserves some of the other important concerns of the transition. Steampunk devices are notoriously unreliable, bulky, and slow (this is how ranged combat has an opening), early rifled arms and artillery had the same properties.
MOUT has some similar properties. While you have high rate of fire, long range, (reasonably) reliable weapons, the terrain and mission context limits forces' ability to use them at long ranges. In some situations.
