I like both, if done well, so it really depends upon the game.
But, I will take this opportunity to say that the beauty of PC
wargaming, is we are no longer handcuffed to what board games can do.
FoW, complex record keeping etc etc is all handled by the computer
and that's great. But why stop there?
More games, like WitE and WitW, should copy the wego systems like the Avalon Hill World at War series of games.
It makes playing and planning less certain, thus taking out the "odds determining", and the ability to plan
the perfect move(s) for a turn. In igougo, one player is completely static, and barely reactive in most instances.
In the best games, you have a plan for the turn, and I have a plan for the turn, and the best plan that takes into account
what the other guy can do, and accounts for it will succeed.
That said, even if using the wego to its fullest, like games by AGEOD, they may have the right wego feel,
but then miss the ball when the behavior for the units seems off.
Thus, for me its not just the wego or ugoigo, but the interaction and how everything works together that counts.
I completely agree with SCAR that it all depends on the game. However, with games like Combat Mission that use a dual turn based, or real time mode, my preference is for the turn based experience. I also like pausable realtime over just realtime, as it gives you the space you need to sometimes just stop and think, make a cuppa etc. For me, SCAR has nailed the issue.