There are no "high level" choices available to a more abstract game that are not available to a more detailed logistical game. You may spend more time on one or the other, high or low, depending on your preference, but that is preference. But, objectively, there are fewer choices available (high vs high+low). To take Go as an example, there are, in fact, a limited number of board-states in Go (but more than chess, which is why we have computers that can beat chess grandmasters but not Go champions). But Star Fleet Battles has a near infinite number of "board-states". So there are objectively more choices to be had playing SFB than Go. Do you find one more enjoyable than the other? Personal taste. But, objectively, SFB has more choice than Go, which has more choice than Chess.
No one (at least not me) is saying that less logistical games are inferior to more logistical games. But, when you talk about the difference between modern and OSR games, once reason they may feel different is the reduction in the focus on logistics, which forces all of your choices to be "high level." Not everyone enjoys that equally. There's no harm in pointing out that you might enjoy a game more if there was more low level choice. You might not. But for those looking to recapture an OSR feel, that is useful information and something to try.