Sorry. But on the other side you're pretty much moving to the bare-bones approach, which may leave us with "just smack it to death".
You're missing that this game is ALREADY 'just smack it to death', the argument is over how much positioning should actually play a role in that, and how much these easy advantage mechanics completely change the flow of the game for both the player and enemy encounters. The main thing is that the usual ways to gain advantage are generally not worth using, because they use a limited resource and are so much harder to maintain, and flat rate modifier spells like Bane and Bless are far less impactful as a result as well. (Why use a concentration-based Faerie Fire spell when you can just move to high ground and cast a ranged offensive spell or grease instead?)
The only things that aren't 'smack it to death' involve the use of things like barrelmancy and shove, which can potentially end fights before they even begin and every character at level 1 has access to that. But that's a whole other can of worms that then veers right into the 'you're highly encouraged to use these so that you don't have to deal with the base combat mechanics' argument. Which is another big problem in this game.
I think the biggest reason why people with tabletop experience are especially critical towards BG3's combat design is that in Larian's efforts to combine their DOS style with DnD mechanics, all they've really achieved was to have the DOS-type design completely overshadow the DnD mechanics, to the point where engaging with the DnD mechanics at all feels like a severe RNG-based punishment for failing to utilize the DOS-style mechanics correctly. The biggest example of this being height advantage/disadvantage - one can argue about the value of the advantage, but I see most people in support of the system conveniently ignore any arguments about what kind of valid purpose the disadvantage portion of it is supposed to serve in this type of game, and it's absolutely not something you can just ignore.
That said, I'm not some tabletop purist, but the main crux of these types of arguments is that the changes that were made basically railroad the player towards a set group of strategies (generally completely revolving around some kind of out of combat setup cheese), and simply do not improve the experience in the long term at all.
On the other hand, I also feel a lot of things would be dramatically dampened in severity if we were allowed to control our reactions and have ready actions set up. Some characters would then have the option to react and defend themselves during the enemy turn.
(I never thought barrelmancy was required at all in DOS2, for the record. It wasn't worth the effort to set up in most cases when your base skills were already so strong to begin with. I can see why one feels much more pressured to utilize it in BG3, when they're an unavoidable source of heavy damage placed in a system where misses are to be expected, one could do enough damage to one-shot most enemies while they generally didn't in DOS2, and there are generally less abilities to utilize overall.)
