The only thing I agree with OP is limited replayability. Some say different party configuration brings full replayability, but it is not. Once you cleared all contents and all dungeons, you are already spoiled, and you can't escape from the situation that you know and expect everything from the game unless you somehow cleanly forget everything about the first experience.
Random engagements (including ambush from the enemy) and other random elements, not only for the world-map engagements but also for combats inside the dungeon, should greatly and truly enhance the replayability of this game. Because players will never expect the same combats again in their next playthrough. No more ambush spam from the exact same point. New surprise ambush and new monster party configuration and etc... will make all playthrough fresh, at least to some degree.
However, I think OP should understand the real difficulty of "making a product". This is not a high school team project for the semester. This is a big real project to develop a product to sell from the competitive market, under the tight budget from crowdfunding and lack of workforce. Such condition ensures a lot of difficulties to project management and development and etc...
Not surprisingly, TA had to cut down a lot of content and ideas they planned initially, to launch their project on time with the competitive quality. Go for too much content and too many details at once for their first project would make their first project fails to finish the development with quality on time. Then, their funding will dry, and the dev office will be dissolved. They will have to launch a half-way-done, full-of-critical-bug game with 50% sale on launch, at least to get some money back. But, that wouldn't change the fact that their project is failed and dev members would look for another job with a not-that-great resume.
Looks like am I joking? This already happened a lot of times to a lot of crowd-funded games. Not only to games but to many other start-up businesses. Just, we don't know that much about such a lot of "failure stories" because no one advertises or talks about such fail stories. So, we mostly see, read, and know about success stories, like we can only see the top of the iceberg, never knowing how much is hidden underneath the water. So, it feels easy to make such successful products. But easier said than done. I think TA is going in a proper direction, and I wish they enlarge their success window in the future. So far, I'm glad that TA didn't fall into the same trap and I hope they don't in the future.
They know people want more and more things to play, and they imagined and envisioned more than now. It is not like the Solasta is short because devs have a poor imagination and all D&D noobs. But, these "real-world issues" like budget, time, workforce... are not easy problems to resolve, rather they can be a nasty problem to doom the entire project. So, we, including you and I, should clearly understand the practical limit of the development of software under a tight budget and lack of developers. And there was a Covid.
If you want to support this game, try to understand the situation that TA developers had to endure. Then, be patient and wait, and provide meaningful feedback that could be helpful for devs to improve this game further.
I think, properly tactically challenging random engagements, including in-dungeon combats, will make players want to try this game again and again, with different settings and/or higher difficulties. But, I don't expect such things will be here any time soon. TA probably would know about this and think about this. They could bring what I want, or they could find even better alternatives. But until they will really push for whatever it is, I can wait.