Rather than the frontal attacks that killed so many, I would have advocated the trench-forward warfare that Grant employed against St Petersburg and Richmond.
Given the control of WW I by the politicians, though....all they wanted to hear about was attacks that would win right away.
Till the campaign ended at Petersburg, Grant spent months trying to maneuver around Lee’s flank. At Petersburg, he settled into a siege very much like the trench warfare of WWI. Though with no machine guns or poison gas, and with much slower and smaller artillery.
Yet Grant never broke the lines until attrition had worn Lee’s men too thin. And then it was to a considerable extent because he got onto Lee’s flank, an option that just wasn’t available to the WWI generals.
I’m unclear what specific tactics you are referencing. The Crater was obviously a great feat of arms turned into a debacle by appallingly poor execution. But with that exception I’m unaware of any really innovative tactics used during the Siege of Petersburg.
BTW, the real problem the frontal attacks had is that even if they broke through the front line, the attackers could not bring up reinforcements as rapidly as the defenders. So they inevitably got outnumbered and pushed back. Or cut off, if they got too far ahead.