The claim of similarity is based on the relationship between weapon range (hands/feet and machineguns/cannon) and ability to land/evade an attack. A martial artist can move to hit an opponent with the same general ability the opponent has to dodge that attack. In the same way, a fighter pilot can maneuver to line up an attack within the same framework the potential target has of getting out of the line of fire. The time/space used by the first pair is much smaller, but each pair shares a similar time/space combat box (or kill zone).
Okay, there are some similarities, definitely – but some really big differences too:
The kill zones are similar in some ways but not others. A martial artist has a large variety of options within the kill zone (hands/arms/feet/legs can go in different directions without changing the rest of the stance or position on the terrain); whereas a fighter pilot with cannon/MGs has to manoeuvre the plane to move the kill zone onto the target – a kill zone which is actually quite narrow compared to the movements of the aircraft (And even the size of the aircraft). Everything has to work as a whole. This maybe one reason why air games concentrate on this.
Fighters cannot usually stay within each other’s kill zones. They are either doing a fast head-on-pass, or a chase, or a fleeting deflection shot. This makes position important in a way not true of “duel” games* as aircraft will be moving into and out of kill zones very quickly (not in proportion to martial arts’ fights, where two combatants can stay in the kill zone as long as they like as long as they can evade or take the punishment; no target fighter would choose to do this).
As a follow on from this, to my mind this creates a very different dynamic in air games (involving more than two aircraft), because aircraft will move into and out of several different kill zones in an air game; this is much less likely in “duel” games.
*Martial arts/gladiators/some wild west gunfights. I think we have to be quite specific about the various types of 1:1 games:
Skirmish games involving c.3 – 20.
Duel games involving 1 – 1; possibly 1 -2.
Typically, as I alluded to in the other post, skirmish games are very accurate in regards to position but pretty indifferent to stance. Duel games are often very interested in stance, or at least action.
Air combat games are often skirmish game sized. I think your idea has most merit in an air “duel” game, if you are prepared to abstract the rest of the battle – I think it will break down when there are more than a few aircraft per side, where position can’t be ignored – and the “stance” (attitude) of the aircraft is such a vital determinant of future position it will be very difficult to abstract much more than games do already.