Neither of these are true in the strategy games the parent comment refers to. They mention playing "in real time", and I interpret that to mean real-time strategy games. In those games, you generally have:
1) Fog of war. You can only see the play area near where you have units. Enemy movements outside of that region are hidden from you. So you are constantly discovering new information as your unit moves around, and having to deal with where you thought the enemy was being wrong.
2) Randomized damage. Most attacks don't do a fixed amount of damage and instead do a certain amount of "rolling the dice". You know on average how much damage X will do against Y, but not the results of any single hit until after it has happened.
The reality is that the vast majority of real-life situations are hybrids[0]---some things are constant, others are new. The math we do changes, but math doesn't change. Boyd's OODA period may have been shorter than that of enemy combatants, but he still had to go to training. What is training if not pre-compiled thought? And importantly: in fluid environments where novel things are likely to arise, having a solid grasp on things that are "settled" makes it easier to integrate new phenomena.
Video games don't work well with this model because in most video games a) information is perfect and b) results are deterministic. You don't have to update your understanding of the world constantly because your knowledge of the world is more or less complete.
In John Boyd's world, you couldn't "pre-compile" any decisions because he was working in the real world, not a game.