He states stuff that is pretty untrue, like talking about how tanks can't fight in mass (which is particularly rediculous given how a armored attack is most effective when massed), how when they support infantry they provide more moral than material support, and how they're frequently equipped with flame throwers as their main gun...
So what? Most commercial wargames tend to not reflect real world situations in any case in a number of ways. They tend to provide way more information then a commander would actually have, cut out entire layers in the chain of command, and a whole host of other stuff. Not to say wargaming doesn't have it's uses, and I plenty enjoy them myself, but it also has it's limitations..
Which games, considering we are talking about tactical and operational level wargames going back to the late 1960s. Indeed his usual point is that combined arms tactics are what win battles, a point support by numerous professional and civilian sources. Combined arms being anything from an aviation strike package to a naval task force to a combined arms brigade.
The historical record of massed armored attacks, particularly when insufficient artillery and infantry support is present, is very bad. Indeed aside from the Six Day War and the early years of the German Blitzkrieg massed tank attacks have failed universally unless well supported by the other elements (engineers, infantry, artillery, air support).
I have read or played dozens of his books, articles and games. Nowhere does he state what you are stating that I have seen. Have a quote?
His tactical games as well as articles and books discuss specifically the firepower and weapons systems of the various AFVs of any particular situation. Indeed "How to Make War" actually tells you armor value, weapons, speed, reliability (in terms of how often they break down) etc of all of the Soviet and US AFVs of the period in question into the present.
So really curious where you are getting your information here.
As to the value of commercial war games. Some are indeed crap, and they fade away quickly. Some are more interested in being a game than accuracy. But the most successful commercial war games are the ones that combine accuracy and playability and accuracy is measured by whether you can get the historical results by making the historical decisions and using the historical tactics or strategy. Most of the games by the old SPI (Dunnigans company) as well as Avalon Hill and GDW (Frank Chadwicks company) allowed you to do that.
They rarely support your optimistic assessment of Soviet capabilities.