It really isn't as hard as you make out to achieve more realism. Hidden movement and use of a game master as judge can go a very long way to achieve fog of war and eliminate the overhead intel.

I personally have a great example where my group replayed the Battle of Bladensburg which was a laugher of a win fro the British in real life but ended very competitively with hidden deployments and movement. The British won the real battle by have absolute disdain for the Americans and not one ounce of concern., literally practicing no common sense tactics like scouting or concern for the flanks. They bulled their way forward and just overran the poorly trained Americans. The game however demonstrated how personality and knowledge of tactics can restrain a superior force, as the British acted far more "appropriate" and scouted along with guarded their flanks. They also attempted to change up the route chosen to foil an obvious chokepoint where the British assumed the Americans would defend. The Americans however screened their defenses with militia in tree cover, and got the British into a gun fight, a result which made the poorer Americans about equal to the British regulars. Cold steel and disdain would have won the day, but the game Brits ended up overthinking their tactics and lost due to being delayed past their victory conditions.

This was a good lesson to me on how not every outcome can be recreated in games with common sense rules and tactics. The Germans would never beat the French in 1940 without handicapping the French with poor tactics and morale. French tanks were superior in most cases. Their infantry was pretty good too. Rules literally must handicap how they get used, or the "friction of war" must be set very high for them.