Well, those are a lot of questions. I try to answer a few from my viewpoint.
For me, Steel Beasts is a game among many. But I tend to say that I have a strong favor torwards simulations (DCS-Series, Falcon BMS, Sub Command, Dangerous Waters, ArmA, Command - Modern Air Naval Operations. Airborne Assault Series).
Compared to some of the titles, I do not find SB very complex. It's quite easy to jump in with a friend who as no knowledge at all and just teach him in an hour to to be a gunner.
Try that with DCS-FA18,,, It takes countless hours just to properly fire a weapon there.
When it comes to Steel Beasts, from my experience there are two ways to play it;
As a System Simulator or as a Battlefield Simulator. If you use it as the first one, it's easy to play. You just man your tank and somebody else (either the mission or an human commander) does the tactical stuff. You will spent most of your times handling the systems of your tank.
If you play it from the poition of a commander it is a totaly different game in my opinion. You will spend most of your time on the map view, ordering units, observing situation and movement of others and communicating.
I usually prefer to play the first mode, because that is how I can play it with my friends, who have a lot less knowledge about the game and tactics in gerneral.
From that point of view, I have a lot of blank spots when it comes to the possibilities of commanding other units on the map view.
What I really like about the game, is that it blends those two topics very well. It can be quite easy for a simulation when it comes to system simulation. But if you want a steep learning curve (and there are a lot of guys in the simulation sector that love taking challenges and learning new stuff all of the time) that is available as well. From this viewpoint, it does the "easy to learn hard to master" paradigm very well.
But when it comes to learning stuff, there is one way that I prefer in any simulation: Interactive tutorials. So this could really be better in SB.
Regards
Raskil