I'm finding myself agreeing with lots that has been said. Weather, interesting terrain, interesting units, good tactical AI are all missing and would add to the tactical 'fun' of the game.
But going back to the start I disagree with this quote:
"In my view, the purpose is to put to the test the collection of units you have versus the enemy."
I think, as you dislike tactical battles you are misunderstanding the entire purpose and fun of tactical battles for other people. I don't think people enjoy tactical battles to 'test' things. I think people enjoy fighting a seemingly unwinnable fight (your collection of units is technically inferior) and, by clever use of terrain, weather, cover, synergistic bonuses and special manoeuvres turning the tide of battle and earning a win. Something clever and amusing enough to put into song and be sung in the halls of Valhalla. There is no sense of... triumph, of achievement given by tactical battles where your army of strength 20 beats an army of strength 10. Autoresove should deal with those fights, not with the fun ones. (It's like how much enjoyment I got out of forcing a draw in chess in one of my first ever games, I was losing badly, only through tactics could I hope for a pyrrhic victory.)
My recommendation: If you do not enjoy the tactical battles then find someone (on the team) who really does, and then trust them to deal with them as they deserve to be dealt with.
(I wouldn't take on another's geography project because I hate geography (not because I'm bad at it, but the two are often tied together), and could never do it justice.)
Or, personally put in the time and enthusiasm it deserves.
Or, try to think of battles not as a chore or test. (words that really indicate a dislike of the thing), but as an engaging, enjoyable, immersive diversion. A chance to prove your skills or be surprised by enemy tactics. A chance to experience the world intimately and viscerally, to see the beautiful horror of battle, to feel your units hope and despair, take pride in their accomplishments and feel sorrow for their loss. (Especially if that unit was key to your strategy, had personally turned the tide of a dozen heroic battles against superior foes.)
I think first we need to prove to you that battles matter to people, before we start listing the whole range of tactical elements that could be added... there are lots and lots and lots. Adding a few to appease people isn't the same as changing your entire approach from 'battles are an optional test' to 'battles are a core, fun and challenging part of the game'.