Command and Control
This is what we believe to be the case: Single unit actions are based on distance from the brigade (commander). A change in brigade orders comes from the CinC who must be within range - there is no possibility of paying double the points if outside this range. We therefore also assumed that exploitation by a brigade is at the instigation of the CinC and so must, again, be in range.
Command and Control is one of the primary pillars of R2E. You've got to think about it from a general's point of view not God the Wargamer's. Of course we we see things unfold from 30,000 feet but the man on the ground probably wouldn't. He'd be relying on an excellent staff system to get info in and out again quickly. Officers who took major risks on their own really only went two ways - oblivion if they failed. Promotion if they succeeded. Most didn't take the risks. The very few who did probably became Marshals. R2E needs the player to think about the relative positions of each link in the chain of command. Exploitation is the exception not the rule. Order changes are clumsy, costly and time consuming. That is why the brigade system of Sluggish-Seasoned-Intuitive works the way it does. Clarence mentioned use of Couriers too. If you get the deployment and chain of command right you'll be another Napoleon!
Charges/Melees
In the game we had two cavalry charges, one was successful; six infantry charges, three successful, but if we read the rules properly a fourth would have gone through. Here success means the charging unit actually goes through with the charge, contact might not necessarily be made as the target may retreat.
Overall melee is simple enough. The combat we felt was unusual was the French chasseurs (drilled, 4 combat groups) vs the British battery (veteran, 3 combat groups). Cavalry got a bad roll and so the difference in combat was only 2, a draw. Next round, cavalry lose their charge bonus and as light cavalry lose two dice. The artillery, as veterans maintain their +d3 and so actually had more dice than the cavalry. Again a draw but artillery down to 50%. As veterans they pass resolve, a final bound of combat. Now both forces (after another draw) are at 50% and BOTH units rout after failing their resolve.
We struck something similar in our first game with light cavalry combat. After losing the charge bonus, having -2 dice and being at 50% for disordered so few dice are thrown that a draw is inevitable so comabt grinds on over several bounds until one side is at 50%. This seems overly bloody for light cavalry combat. It also seems odd that light cavalry against infantry suddenly become disadvantaged in a second bound of combat.
We also found that charging units are often out of support range of their brigade and end up suffering in subsequent Resolve rolls.
Cavalry have a long reach in a charge, yet the Brigadier, if not attached, has a much shorter move and can easily be left behind and so another negative on the resolve test.
Now, these last problems may just call for better management of units, but the light cavalry combat problems don't feel right.
On this point all I will offer is a balanced question: Was it because the outcome didn;t feel right historically or what it becasue it was not the out come you or your opponent wanted in the game? Or that you have been used to in previous rule mechanisms?
Wargaming is a GAME of course. We want excitement and often to win too. War I think, is a messy business. I did not write the rules to favour uber troops but to try and recreate to the extent of my intellect, something that felt realistic. The heavy qualifier in this questions is the 'chance factor' of the bad dice throwing. I cannot legislate for that. In real life that is called luck, fate, karma, God's will etc... on the gaming table it is what keeps both parties interested.. the chance of a shock result. I don't think that a battery of Veteran gunners defending their guns to the death against a Drilled regiment of Hussars is that unrealistic. By Napoleonic times artillerymen were highly trained, highly motivated and usually well led.
Cavalry are essentially a one shot weapon, they always have been:
Agincourt
Bannockburn
Blenheim
Borodino
Waterloo
Balaklava
etc
All examples of what should have been a forgone conclusion but wasn't..
The shock impact or threat of it, is what should do the damage. After that, a man on a static frightened horse is far less manoeuvrable than an individual on foot. I hope the logic here is sound and at least rationalizes my choices
Skirmishing
Best skirmishing rules I have come across. A balance is achieved preventing them being too powerful or irrelevant. Here they are enough of a nuisance to be delt with slowly adding to casualties and wearing down the enemy. Chosing the terrain for skirmishers is important. VB forgot for one move that line units could deploy skirmishers. In that time I had taken the rough ground which we had made cover (-2 to enemy firing) - enough with my greater numbers (a light battalion in half deployment) to gain dominance and lter fire on the parent unit in line.
Thanks, or more accurately, thanks to you for the feedback and thanks to Clarence for being so persistent and irritating about bloody skirmishers! 
I think familiarity will get me over the number of dice for charges. I fully agree that melee between infantry seldom occurred so no problems there. Just quite different to what we have been used to.
