An interesting question.
For the most part, especially in the BG system, the games are mostly played historical, as they are very limited in scope. In BG, you are almost forced to adhere to a (close to) historical track, as the scope of the games are limited to that aspect. Sure, you can do some odd things with Longstreet or Doubleday (in BGG), but the main forces are pretty well structured.
In the HPS system, like Corinth and Franklin, again you are mostly set to play a historical slant. However, in Campaign Gettysburg and Peninsula, the maps are so large, that you can take any course you want to. You can play historically or you can take a completely ahistorical course. I find that aspect very appealing, although I have nothing against playing a stricly (as much as you can) historical game.
As for a particular game giving you the "feel" of battle, I have to say that they do. They don't have the "feel", though, of real, actual battles, as I do not think that "feeling" can be portrayed adequately in ANY game system. HPS comes the closest to doing that portrayal, in general, IMO.
<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
LtGen, CO XXIII Corps, AoO
ACWGC Cabinet member
</b></font id="gold">