When I say "actual game play" I'm looking at it from a purely mechanical point of view.
There's more to game play then the pure mechanics. So if you are going to speak about pure mechanics you should say so, because game play involves more than just the mechanics.
And no I don't think most people would agree the game would be better without the models even if they get in the way from time to time.
If this game had been produced with nothing but cardboard tokens, it would have 1/10th if that the popularity it does. The thing that attracts most people to it, is how it looks on the table. There's a reason why miniature games are still fairly popular but the old cardboard chit type games have for the most part died out.
Game play is mechanics. Now play experience may include more than that but you can have the exact same game and get two completely different experiences from that game even if the mechanics are completely the same.
I never said most people would agree, I just said they should agree. I'd put this down to emotion vs. logic and so many people, especially here, seem to let emotions rule when it comes to things like models. I'd say a similar thing happened back during the great dial debate where a lot of emotional support when behind an early answer while the logic backs up how things eventually turned out.
You know what, I'll agree with you on that last point that the game is far more popular because of the pretty models. The models provoke more emotion and emotions are what will drive sales. Something that is pretty may attract more attention but may not make it function any better. Pretty sells otherwise how could one explain $1000+ chess sets when cheap plastic sets work just as well as far as the GAME is concerned.
If miniatures are such an essential part of the game how in the world could the game be played on vassal where miniatures do not exist as everything is represented by a two dimensional shape?