This is fairly primary to your thesis, and it's massively flawed.
In truth, military history is replete with examples of one great tactical aim: 'to get there firstest with the mostest'. Or, to quote Forrest more accurately: '[To] get there first, with the most men'. In other words, force concentration is an absolutely key aspect of achieving any victory, especially when coupled with mass. The Barbarossa campaign of WW2 is often depicted historically as a much smaller mass of German soldiery sweeping aside an enormous number of Soviets, but the truth is more complex. In breakthrough corridors during the initial border battles (and subsequently), the secret to German success was establishing local superiorities of 10:1 in most categories, in order to achieve freedom of maneuver. Obviously, when taken as a whole the RKKA was a larger military institution than the Wehrmacht. But German 'doomstacking' allowed them to defeat the RKKA piecemeal during 1941.
The Soviets learned this lesson well, and when they reciprocated with Operation Bagration in 1944, they established similar force superiorities in key corridors.
To cut a long story short: doomstacking is a totally viable - if abstract - representation of military realities. There are games that handle it better (EU4, for example, which introduces combat width, attrition and morale/discipline/technology as primary differentiating factors between competing forces) and there are those that don't handle it well (Civ4), but the underlying principles are sound.
Even this:
... is not crazy. Military professionals do this all the time:
Obviously, the more factors you incorporate in your combat algorithms the more accurate the result will be.
WITE (War in the East) showcases a good example of doomstacking done right.