Perhaps we're not being entirely fair here. A decent combat will still have a tactical element even for the Figther - positioning matters, because it affects when you can full-attack, when you can charge, when you're close enough to move-and-attack, when you can't do either, where difficult terrain is, whether your targets can 5ft step away from you, whether they get (soft) cover and whether you're flanking (Fighters don't get Sneak Attack but do get the +2 to AB, still).
This is why I'm not a fan of the "full-attack as a standard action" houserule (or easy ways of getting Pounce) - power-wise, this isn't crazy, but it removes one of the few tactical elements that martials have to consider.
If you then add in the options to bull rush and trip and so on, actually, there's potentially a lot going on in a fight. You only really see this though at the lower levels (after which a lot of this becomes trivialised), possibly after people get an iterative, and in fights where there's a lot going on (where there actually is difficult terrain or where obstructions exists, where there are multiple, mixed enemies, and so on) which is quite situational. Worse, most of these trip and disarm options are pretty weak unless you've invested in them a lot already.
Damage is certainly abstracted away. Maybe some kind of called shots/wounds system might help there. You do risk overcomplicating it, though, and my point was that magic behaves the same way. I can get hit by 100 Scorching Rays and not catch fire (and there's already even a mechanic for that!) and so on... which is why blasters are so poor, because they're turning themselves into flashy archers. And most spells are abstracted down to a single saving throw, too. The main discrepancy is probably how difficult it is for martials to inflict conditions compared with casters.