I think this is one of the big problems with their idea of a fighter, the whole CRPG / RPG concept of a 'tank' who can just absorb hits and doesn't actually do much more than absorb damage and dish out a little punishment back, and doesn't rely on situational awareness or stealth at all, let alone timing or tempo.
It would help game designers a lot I think to study how actual tanks worked in real life. Even trying out a relatively simple but realistic computer war game can be a real eye-opener. You can have the worlds best tank (T-34, Pz Kw V, whatever) but if you attack without regard for where the enemy forces are and how they are situated, blundering right into the open so that they definitely know where you are, you are doing to die real quick, no matter how good your armor is, no matter how good your gun is, how big your engine and so forth.
It's the same with air combat too. The most deadly component on a WW II fighter arguably was the radio. If you play a game like Il2 you can see how 3 or 4 guys using their radio's (through VIOP) can rip apart 12 or 15 guys who aren't.
Every kind of actual warfare is a chess game, and without situational awareness (reconnaissance, battlefield intelligence, communications) you are playing without knowing where the other pieces are. To call that a disadvantage is an understatement.
The more I read about the Mongols, the more critical it seems that it was THIS, the C3I as they call it today, which was their real battlefield advantage. People tend to try to make their recurve bow into an uberweapon; and it was a very good weapon, but it was not what made the real difference. It was the C3I which allowed the Mongols and other lightly armed forces in history to defeat much tougher (on a man for man level) opponents routinely. The C3I and the discipline which for example allowed entire Mongol cavalry troops to lay their horses down on their sides and hide ...
Rand Corporation wrote a really good article about this a few years back, including how the Mongols used special couriers called 'arrow riders' for battlefield intel here
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... _RP223.pdf
Even the knightly heavy-cavalry of the European feudal warlords relied on timing and situational awareness to achieve their victories, just on a more tactical than operational or strategic level such as the Mongols used. In a full scale battle, they would ride by, attack, rearm; ride by, attack, rearm; over and over again until the enemy force started to weaken. Then and only then the decisive lance charge came which shattered the enemy formation. Vastly more wars were won by small ambushes, tricks to takeover castles, commando raids to destroy supplies, basic cavalry tactics used to achieve quick local numeric superiority, and so forth, than the actual toe to toe, football game style contests which tend to get all the press.
G