I am not sure what result is expected from a wargame pitting the US against China in open war over Taiwan? Losing carriers and satellites might be the least of our concerns once if that war gets going. Park that.
Wargames are fun. It is important, though, to have an understanding of how results are adjudicated. So, if the Red Team could say "We are going to deny the US access to satellites" and the wargame controllers grant that effect arbitrarily you can then have a great thought experiment of what happens if the US military is denied access to satellites (or has degraded access). That doesn't mean that we should get rid of networks that rely on satellites, though, since the decision was rather arbitrary. It a minimum, though, it could inform work on making the network more resilient or looking at options ow what to do when access is degraded.
Similarly, if Red Team can say "We will destroy the US Carriers with our hypersonic missiles" and the Red Team grants that without actual high-fidelity simulation then once again we have a fun thought experiment but not necessarily a reason to scrap the carriers or fight differently.
The really important battles are fought between the Services and their congressional/industrial allies inside the Beltway. This article about the wargame is an Information Operation in that war.
I find it interesting that the General says that the attempt to assert information dominance failed, and then follows up that they will attempt to gain an information advantage. I think I can understand the difference between dominance and advantage, but this makes me think that the proposed changes are not all that revolutionary? Did anyone think we would have complete Information Dominance?
I think that the problem space that we need to study is a 2nd World/3rd World/non-state enemy with access to some 1st world weaponry and advice (Snowdome etc). We might end up in the same place, but there might be some important differences.