Joe and Jim have helped out tremendously here and thanks for that Chaps. I have been otherwise engaged
Some further clarification perhaps but I will precis with the statement..
If you don't like something in a rule set you can change it. It does not upset me. The customer buys the rules and can do what they please. There are however good reasons why the mechanisms are, as they are. One of these is that over the past 20 years or so I have done ALL the tinkering that players have done since and arrived at the current mechanics.
The most common reason gamers tinker with rules is that the as written version jars with their own views/preconceptions of reality and thus, rationale for change is already seeded in their minds. Another reason is, they played a couple of times, got a bad result and because of that want to change the bit that screwed up their plan. Happens a lot.
Here are some core facts which explain some of the mechanisms above:
1. Orders. Command radius does not affect the ability of a unit to act as often colonels would make tactical decisions about their regiments (which they often paid for). This was not the Napoleonic age of nationalism, patriotism, complex staff corps, signal flags etc. It was the birthing room of modern warfare - professionalism was learned not trained. Tactical systems of deployment, fire control, cavalry tactics were the prerogative of the proprietor not the Generalissimo. Being proximate to your Brigadier/OC provides moral bonuses and allows a specific order - DEFEND to be changed. Otherwise, if order allowance is available then units are free to act. Why a brigadier would be at the other end of the table from his brigade is questionable. Individual units should not be wandering off at random. Brigades should where possible stay together and within the normal command radius for support.
2. In an age when march rates were less than 40 paces per minute, units did not perform cadenced movement and tactics were slow and linear - the most important thing was to be in the right formation in the right place at the right time. If you screw that up you will die. Hence, movement, formation changing etc are slow and difficult. I don't subscribe to moving backwards at half speed and only use that 'house rule' in large games to keep the game play fluid. A unit should take 1 turn to formation change (ie about face), one turn or more to move back and a final turn to face about - because - that's what they did! There was very little training - you got a uniform and a weapon. You were shown the basic movements of loading and firing. You were not taught to march in step, incline, double, change into column, skirmish etc. Lines were slow and clumsy. This is also why wheeling is at half rate under normal circumstances. In a charge the change in direction is made a random variable resulting in some doubt as to whether contact will actually be made. Charging is a risky business, not maths.
3. Minimum forward movement to gain charge bonuses is 3 inches for Horse. This does not apply for Foot.
4. Artillery in field engagements was more of a psychological weapon than a battle winner. The -2 on new target is not -2 dice but -2 on the 'to Hit' score ie 6 becomes 8 on the first shot on a new target unless a master gunner is attached. A line which is shot at down its length is a dense target - there is also the 'shot through' rule for units close together. Guns were often under individual control and did not act as batteries firing in unison like later periods.
I hope that together with Joe's detailed comments and Jim's contributions this helps you Joe. It's a fascinating period but you have to be prepared for your army to not do what you want it to! That is part of the fun and the command challenge.
I truly hope you enjoy gaming this period and can avoid some of the common traps in thinking which abound. Many are created by partizan historical accounts.