Hi Simon
Makes excellent sense. Whether a kill on a sabre roll, or a kill on an inf roll, it's definitely an improvement historically.
One thing I've learnt though is not to expect CCN to be a true simulation. I tend to think of it as a GAME rather than a simulation. For example, I can't get my head around how units can advance, and then fire without being first fired upon as they advance. I keep forgetting I can do this, since there are few Napoleonic wargames out there which would allow this. But it does work in the game/balance sense. Very often, the overall "feel" of the battle is maintained, although the details are not always ideal. As a result, I play CCN as a GAME (like chess), and leave the simulation part to games such as La Bataille. For this reason, I prefer not to add more layers of rules, such as the tactical cards, which I don't think are necessary to what already is a great game.
The other thing which CCN generally does is create balanced, and therefore often, ahistorical scenarios. It was rare that actions would be balanced. I've just played Gamonal twice and it's already unbalanced in favour of the French, but historically the Spanish were even worse than portrayed in the scenario - half the infantry were militia, and they had less cavalry. But they've been beefed up a little and it means they can make some sort of defence during the game. I think that increasing reliance on objective hexes, tactical withdrawals, etc, are a better way of dealing with these sorts of situations, rather than balancing the units and relying on simple unit elimination, and I've been pleased to see such changes as the system's evolved. But in the end, as I said, I see this more as a game than trying to portray specific actions highly accurately.
