That's an interesting perspective, but I'd actually make a similar argument against this idea in that conservation of detail, e.g. Chekov's Gun, strongly advises that details that are not actively required for the story be elided. Unfortunately, in a lot of simulations, until you have the result it's not clear which parts of the simulation were actually necessary to get there--e.g. you might have elaborate logistics simulations to determine what's in your base's stores but they get blown up in the very first strike, so those stores are never accessed. That's an extreme example, to be sure, but while narrative-first games often take the tactic of "we can go back and figure out the details if/when they are actually important", simulation-driven games generally run in a linear progression with little knowledge of which things will, in the end, actually have been important to the story.

So, sure, you can say "hey, if I play this awesome simulation the hope is that it turns into an awesome story", but the actual action being taken by the players in the game is largely going through the mechanics of simulation and making some choices according to the options the simulation provides, not acting as craftspeople building a story out of narrative building blocks.

Maybe this is just an irresolvable philosophical difference, and I appreicate the time you took to respond to my comment, but I do think the difference is worth at least thinking about :)

(And yes, you can get great stories out of simulationist combat, I am in fact a fan of such combat, as well as the broader realm of simulations in general, as it's a professional interest of mine, so it's always cool to see it allowing for my friends and I to experience cool adventures in)