For years, I have struggle when playing with a decided cavalry inferiority. Wagram is a case in point but for me so has been Borodino. This is a bit easier in 1814 and to a lesser extent in 1813 for the allies, because of the number of guns and, in 1814, the French often lack the infantry for a good combined attack in the scenarios in which they have a cavalry superiority(Vauchamps, for instance).
It is my belief that many of the scenarios are stacked in favor of the French, even if in many, such as many Jena scenarios, the VP's required for French victory require destroying the Prussians. By this, I mean, it is easier, in the rare contest of equal players, for the French to win on the battlefield, if not the VPs. I do not see this as a flaw, but rather history. Jena, Friedland (ok we do not have this one, and I have heard zero rumors of it being made), Wagram, Borodino, the Battle of Eckmulh, Lutzen, and Bautzen (do not have the latter two either)---what do these all have in common? Napoleon got there firstest with the mostest and this presents a challenge to the allied player and the scenario designer.
Even some battles where the numbers are more matched (Borodino), the quality of the French and more so their organization gives them an advantage. In the 1805 game, the Austrian army organization, and the Russians to, gives the allied players headaches, compared to the lean and efficient corps organization of the French.
Sure, many scenarios CAN be one by the side with the odds stacked against them, but it is rare. I do not mind playing them, though, unless they are truly no win...
Writing this and the Borodino post has me thinking of digging up NRC and installing it...
_________________ 
|