By postulating that the artillery result also hits cavalry you'd have achieved the same result without any need of replacing dice stickers. I don't know enough about Napoleonic warfare to say if this modification does actually produce an increase in realism or not. In any case, it seems completely playable.
Thanks for your interest in reply to your points
1. We have played now 6 Epic games with lots of cavalry on both sides and although it does make Cavalry vs Cavalry more "bloody" we think that is OK as it makes you more circumspect with them. Cavalry vs Cavalry engagements were it seems all too often decided very swiftly rarely ending in a standoff.
2. We have not considered this but we did not notice any huge difference, then again that might have been poor die rolls. If this was a problem a fix would be to ignore the face with the half and half or consider the infantry as moving firing so reducing the number of dice thrown.
3. The Prussians did not suffer unduly in our games we have not used the British yet. As you become aware of the increased vulnerability you tend to compensate. As I said before you use the cavalry in a different manner, often trying to preserve them as a breakthrough/outflanking force.
4. We used the tactics cards in all of our games, again there was no notable difference noted in any of the games.
Please note we do not play "competition" games so the play balance for such games has not been considered.
Thanks for your reply. We had not considered using the artillery face as you suggest however our method may be preferable as there maybe confusion during gameplay as to what and when constitutes a hit. Some of us are subject to confusion more than others myself included.
But for myself, it makes Cavalry very weaker. I'm not a specialist of the napolenic period but it seems that Cavalry was a masterpiece of an army.
We have tried another version : A unit attacked by a Cav or an Inf can fire its dices but only hits on dice figures ( then, the attacking unit rolls the initial dices less the suffered block lost) but there's no battleback in this way.
We have played also half losses. It costs 2 hits to remove one block. Then when a hit is obtained, a block is put down and does not count for fire or melee power.
This version made the game longer but is interesting regarding the statistics.
In fact , we continue playing the official rules for a principle of simplification.
Thanks for your interest. As to the power of cavalry it was on the wane by the Napoleonic period, it looked just as spectacular but was not as effective as it had been in the 17/18th centuries. Your ideas are interesting but simplicity was what we were aiming for with the change to the dice. Change the dice, minimal change to the rules. Indeed until Mark pointed out the problem with the evade rule we saw no need for further modification, but we are now playtesting ignoring the split die side when rolling for an evade. By all means stick with the rules as written, we have only made a suggestion after all.
WE have now played with the modified dice for what seems like a long time but in essence is only a couple of months. We have ignored the split die face when rolling to hit evading cavalry and of course it then plays as the standard game in that respect. We continued to see players use cavalry in a more circumspect manner which in our view (you may of course disagree) is more historical. Prussian and British cavalry in particular have to be handled with care something Wellington would agree about I am sure.