Thanks for interest and comments on this scenario, and sorry for long delay in commenting/responding. In case there is still any interest left many months later, some responses below.
The scenario was actually playtested pretty extensively by me and my wargaming partner Elliott. The map, the special rules, the force composition, and army placement underwent numerous changes. We actually found that the French had a pretty difficult time assaulting the heights unless they had a favorable hand, and numerous tweaks were made to improve the odds for their side and give them a better fighting chance, so I'm surprised that Bayerniki won 0% with the Allies. In a lot of the games, the French would suffer heavy casualties before they could get their assault moving, which led to changes in their setup that helped facilitate a quick advance, but they still tended to lose a fair amount in our games. IIRC, advancing against Bagration tended to produce better outcomes than a frontal assault against Pratze. With that in mind, the VP were skewed to give extra rewards to the French for Krzenowitz and Pratze, in recognition of the difficulty the French player experienced in taking and holding them.
The intent of the rules as written was for Davout to arrive on French turn 4 along the map edge, and be immediately available for activation. In our games, this generated the right amount of tension on the French right flank, with the Russians often commencing a promising attack, and Davout arriving just in the nick of time to rescue the French position. That said, of course anyone is welcome to make their own tweaks to the special rules, and play however feels most historical or most enjoyable to them--Davout on turn 3 is also reasonable. One very simple balancing tweak to assist the Allies (if they are indeed losing disproportionately) is to sub in their Guard Heavy Cavalry unit for the Russian cuirassiers stationed with Constantine's Guard. While technically speaking the "correct" unit, we found the GHC to be an overpowered tank in our test games; however, if the Allies need help, the GHC will certainly provide it.
Also, and this may disqualify me as a competent scenario designer, I don't really play with Tactician cards, so I didn't include them in the rules. I would suggest players assign whichever number they feel is correct based on their assessment of the commanders, and fine suggestions have been made in the comments.
As stated in the design notes, the goal was to limit the number of special rules and create a "straightforward" Austerlitz scenario that balanced historical force composition and playability. I have taken a similar approach in draft Friedland and Borodino all-in-one scenarios which I will hopefully be submitting to Alessandro soon.
