I disagree. DnD can be a very tactical game. But I don't think a 1 to 1 is going to make it the perfect game. I'd like to see some rules adhere to DnD better though, but I don't mind the surfaces etc as much as others (although some spells gets a little too powerful right now because of it).
I like the current advantage system, that adds stratagy, but every class having "cunning actions" takes away from the rogue and makes things a little too easy.
Surfaces are a great example of an interesting mechanic added to the dull DnD System. And i agree - Advantage and Light are 2 good mechanics that actually come from the core rules. But just to show the point im trying to make a bit more...
Core DnD does not consider positioning. No flanking, no "backstabs" in the literal sense. Thats horrible for tactical combat. The only thing core rules DnD cares about is adjacent allies - and for pen and paper that is totally fine because it simplifies combat and in pen and paper not everyone runs maps and figures. But here the game is literally you being a "figure on a map"
In that case I kinda agree with you. I don't mind surfaces, but when an oil barrel and firebolt = Fireball at lvl 2, then it's an issue of balance too. But I think it comes down to how it all interacts and the numbers.
Heck there are rules for surfaces etc too in DnD, I think people just don't play enough with it.
----
I do think though the rules for movement, disengagement etc from DnD makes things MORE tactical, not less.
