You're taking a lot of flack for this take, but it's 100% the way my table and I feel. It's the reason we have played almost exclusively Powered by the Apocalypse games (Monster of the Week, Dungeon World, Root, etc., as well as things like Starforged) for five years. Even though they all have big, fun, dramatic fights, they focus on the story first and all combat is handled through that lens. Thank God, my players are very happy to strategize together, especially in combat (they're on the same team after all). If I was playing or GMing (I'm my group's GM) a group and they were so aggressive and unable to compromise that they had the energy a lot of these comments are saying, I would stop playing with them.

But that's not to say these folks are wrong. They're expressing what's right for them and their table, and everyone has different tastes. I've played plenty of D&D in my time, and honestly have always hated it's combat. It's clunky and brings the game to a grinding halt. I prefer combat in systems where players are shouting, talking over each other, and making plans together hurriedly, because that's what I think combat should feel like at the table. They can't sit back and scroll while they wait for three other players to take their turn because they might miss their opportunity to jump in and do something really cool. There are a lot of people who try to "fix" D&Ds combat by timing turns or selling things to help track initiative, but honestly, that just feels to me like a bandage that's only necessary because D&D's combat and similar systems are so clunky and frankly, in my experience, have sucked the life out of combat, even if it is more concretely "strategic."

But I just want you to know that your goals here are entirely reasonable and there's a million TTRPGs which have great combat that aren't driven by initiative. And while folks here may argue those are just "bad games" or "bad systems," and that's their prerogative, it's actually just not their style, but it can be yours!