Nope. NL is a much more complex game than limit. This is covered fairly well in the U-of-A literature. Also some of the two plus two NL books describe why NL is more complex.
Just because there is a simple strategy (shortstacking push/fold) that can be applied successfully against weak players, that doesn't mean that NL is a simpler game.
When you are trying to model the game there is a lot more to consider in NL. In Limit at each point in a hand and at each future point in a hand there are only limited actions that your opponent can take - raise, call, check, fold. In NL they can do any of these actions but also for any amount - push, raise pot, raise 1/2 pot etc. So the problem space for NL is much larger than for Limit. Bluffing is a much bigger part of NL and bluffing is hard to model.
Playing profitable limit poker is a fairly mechanical, mathematical process. You can't force people out of a hand with a big bet. It basically boils down to betting when you're probably ahead, folding when you're probably behind and drawing when the pot odds are favorable.
The U of A bots can play limit reasonably successfully against decent players. A decent player can easily beat their bots at NL.
Building a bot that can profit at the microstakes tables might be easier for NL than limit because you can employ a push/fold short stacking strategy like you describe. But building a bot that can survive against better players would be much harder for NL than Limit.