Not exactly what the OP asked for, but I figured it's relevant enough for me to throw in my two bits. I've mostly done Pathfinder games in Play by Post format, which means a lot of character building for a lot of games that died pretty quickly. The caster/martial disparity mostly rears its head in character building for me.
I don't like Paizo style casters much. The x number of spells per day, then you're a commoner with a crossbow activates my hoarder tendencies, even if there's virtually no chance of it happening in normal play. So I lean towards martial characters.
Martial characters are defined by limits, or at least that's what it feels like when making one. Want to do combat maneuvers instead of damage sometimes? Three feats, and you'd better take an archetype and specialize your gear to keep up with those monster CMDs, and better hope they're not just flat out immune. Want to buff your party? Play a caster, or one of a handful of archetypes that actually get any significant ability to do so. Debuff? Same story. Want to fly? Taste that WBL tax while gazing enviously at Overland Flight. Want to pick up some crafting feats to even things out a bit? Costs you an extra feat.
I think I'd sum it up as casters are competent at whatever they'd like to be out of the box, then can choose to specialize further or dabble widely. Martials are pigeon-holed into one or two options, and need to heavily specialize if they want to keep any other option relevant. They just don't really get some options either, like buffing.