I guess it depends on whether you like your games to have a narrative style or a more rules-driven style.
Too many tactical rules puts too much emphasis on combat - combats are an 'easy' obstacle to write into an adventure and a lot of FRPGs tend to overuse combat to slow the pace of an adventure - I'm all for an epic battle that
means something, but just fighting a guard because he was in the way doesn't seem very heroic. I think if a lot of FRPG groups timed their combats, they'd find they spend an inordinate amount of time resolving who hit who for how much damage, and much less on exploring the story, their character, and the fantasy world in which they are adventuring. Introducing more tactical rules regarding shield walls, weapon reach, swing radius, etc., would only add an extra layer of complication to an already rules-heavy part of the game and inhibit the flow of the story. I prefer a more abstract system that can be resolved quickly - if I feel that quarters are too cramped to use a particular weapon, or the characters can use a long-handled weapons' additional reach to good effect in a combat, then I'd just make an at-the-table ruling.
If anything, I'd be inclined to run rapid combats with minor encounters. Perhaps something along the lines of:
- assign a die to each profession (d4 for sorcerers and elementalists, d6 for mystics and assassins, d8 for warlocks, d10 for knights and barbarians).
- for each MP a sorcerer or elementalist is prepared to expend, increase the die by 2 steps, max 4 steps (i.e., d4 -> d8 ->d12)
- for each MP a warlock is prepared to expend, increase the die by 1 step, max 2 steps (i.e., d8 -> d10 -> d12)
- If the Mystic wants to make a Psychic Fatigue check, increase the die by 1 step for each -1 penalty to the check, max 3 steps (i.e., d6 -> d8 -> d10 -> d12).
- the enemy loses the number of HP rolled on the character's die. If the enemy is still standing, the hero loses 1d8-AF HP (assuming the enemy can attack back - assume that all characters with ranged attacks can use them).
- The GM narrates what happens, involving multiple blows, use of terrain, and anything else they feel is appropriate.
- Repeat until something dies.
It's simple and fast and keeps the pace of the meaningful elements of role-playing ticking along. For the encounters that have genuine repercussions on the story, such as end-of-adventure baddies, or cliffhanger encounters, then run the combats in as much detail as you feel will build tension and create a sense of satisfaction. If the party have to churn through a dozen or so skeletons before reaching the cult leader, the players are likely to be bored or rolling so many dice in individual combats with the skeletons that the combat with the cult leader will just be a chore. But if you save zooming into tactical combat to play out the blow-by-blow detail for special encounters, the players will realise something a importance is about to go down...
This is only my opinion of course, people that like wargaming elements in their role-playing games can port wargaming and mass combat rules into their games - there are enough examples of balanced wargaming mechanics out there for people to introduce a wealth of tactical combat options to DW.