There's a fundamental difference between Hard-To-Hit-But-Low-Hit Points systems and Easy-To-Hit-But-Lots-Of-Hit-Points systems.
Older D&D designs at low levels were hard-to-hit-but-low-hit-points: the tactics and thinking happened largely BEFORE the to-hit roll even happened. The roll itself was in doubt, but if it connected…BAM, possible death. So it required a lot of plotting and scheming to get into place to deliver that payload (or avoid it). By 4e, most of the tactics kick in more and more AFTER the to-hit roll connects--how much damage, where does the foe end up? is there an area effect already there, will the damage be ongoing? etc etc
The first way of playing needs a robust world and a robust interface of PCs with the rest of the world to avoid just being "gamble on your sucky to-hit roll" (which is how people who hate those systems see it), the second way needs a robust and complex tactical situation to avoid being "make perfunctory to-hit rolls and chip away at the monster's hit points for 9 rounds while it chips away at yours."
Jeremy D added this, which is smart and simple:
Missing sucks way more when the combat round is long.