Based on a reasonable definition, I would say that "simulators" are probably in a minority among wargamers. During the twenty-odd years I was fully into wargaming, I met a couple people who insisted that playing a game was equivalent to studying the battle the game was based on. But most wargamers I met didn't care. They weren't studying; they were playing. However, the military imagery--the *illusion* that the game portrayed a battle--was, I think, important to every wargamer I've ever met.

In other words, a game is a simulation if the players play it with the attitude that it models something. Well, I'd say every wargamer I ever met does that. The illusion that when you're playing the game you're vicariously commanding an army--that's a huge part of what wargaming is all about.

But not many will claim--as one online correspondent did--that Pan-zer General and Axis & Allies are not wargames. The fellow who did make this claim based his curious viewpoint on the fact that such games are deliberately inaccurate models. My view is, Who cares? They're games about war, so they're wargames.