Yeah, I hear you, but here’s where I’m coming from. First, I’m not talking about numbers or data per se. It’s all in how it’s used, and what data it is. I love a bunch of data, but it’s all too easy to substitute quantity of numbers for actual systems design. Command Ops does a good job of having lots of numbers but also a sophisticated game system, where the player can pick and choose how much they get into. Pretty much every game by Koger or Grigsby, IMO, is the opposite–data overload to hide the fact that the essential game systems are weak or underdeveloped, at best.
I feel that a simulation that is built on this sort of framework, where you focus on quantifying the value of individual weapons and where the specific quanta of data the player works with is some form of “X thousand rifles, X dozen tanks of Y model,” is fundamentally a bad simulation. It might make a good game-like interactive product (and I sometimes do like to revel in the rivets), it can’t be good simulation or really a good “game,” because that sort of modeling I feel is essentially wrong-headed and inevitably will return ahistorical, unrealistic, and generally bizarre results in the long run.
In other words, sure, you can ignore it if you want, but it’s not about ignoring it because it isn’t my preferred way of playing. It’s about my strong belief that the basic design philosophy is flawed. It’s not that data isn’t immersive, it’s that all too often designers use masses of data to hide the flaws in the game. And adding more data, without the systems that actually use that data, and in such a way that the player can do something with that information that has a reasonable cause/effect relationship, to me is not fun.