No one has noted one of the main (and not so obvious, like contextual help) advantages of tactics – a more convenient arrangement for flanking. Very good players can flank anyone even without tactics, but I, even with group golems, struggle without tactics – they just rush forward. And there are also trolls – once enraged, they can reach the stack of archers on the 1st turn; with tactics, you can not only provide basic cover but also lure enemies in one direction, divide them into parts, and, if you're lucky, detach a single stack from them. You can use the terrain, position units – for example, place slow dragons for self-buffing or a mass attack (not very reliable, depends on the AI and the player's skills). Therefore, this skill is even more useful for non-ranged troops.
Often, tactics are more useful than mass slow/haste – if you have strong melee/archers/no mass haste, I would prefer tactics over logistics.
I'll risk bringing up an old topic – tactics, like mass slow, and starting with conflict/rampart, are less relevant with high skill. For example, a bad player needs mass slow to capture the conservatory, but an average player doesn't.
Don't worry about it :) In any case, tactics are a welcome guest in the tree of predictions... Only logistics, defense, and offense are better, followed by earth (with slow) and air (with haste), and everything else depends on the circumstances.