I was also at the comp and I (now) have the same view as Tim - cavalry is too good in rough terrain and combined arms attacks are far too easy to pull off. I am sure the order of finish was not totally determined by the number of cavalry units - but I don't think it was unrelated.
Infantry really have nowhere to hide other than a BUA or wall. Armies with limited cavalry struggled in the comp.
While a 4-base cav unit fighting a 4 base inf unit in rough is 6-4, that is worth a crack. But most cavalry in the comp were Valiant (8-4), Large (10-4), or Large Valiant (12-4). I won't comment on the Avant Garde's Large Valiant Lancer of Death unit... Many attacks were of course combined arms, which shifts the odds even more.
For me the -2 for cavalry fighting in rough works with small normal units, but not for large or Valiant units. They also can take the odd DISR on the way in.
Now it may be a design objective that infantry should sit in the open (and keep away from woods and other rough terrain) but that still means they eventually get run over by combined arms attacks. Combined arms attacks were pretty common in our comp. Further, all they can do is sit and hope the other guys impales himself - they can't really win, which is a bit dull for them.
Of course, two NZ comps is not enough evidence to want to change rules. Players will adapt - in my last game with Tim his infantry did handle my cavalry pretty well while they waited (and waited) for the Heavy Dragoons to arrive.
But I certainly lean towards a bit of tinkering if the trend continues.
After the comp we have had a bit of discussion about potential changes. I favour defining fields (since they are not defined in the rules, so a comp organiser has to define what they are in any case) as:
1) open ground for infantry and artillery
2) rough ground for cavalry
3) Cavalry halve their dice fighting infantry, infantry not in square do not halve their dice fighting cavalry.
Broken Ground is probably a better name. Essentially this is a bit of terrain where infantry can play in without worrying too much about cavalry. I prefer this cos it is not really a rule change - just a tweak of the terrain. This also allows a organiser to put out at least one infantry friendly (Peninsular) table - which will make players think a bit more about what support they want to use.
Other ideas:
1) Support units can only be commanded by their sub commander (not the commander). You want to use 4 Valiant Hussars - great, but they have to stay as a block in the subgenerals command range rather than being intermingled with infantry across the table under either their subcommander or commander.
2) If you declare a charge against an enemy unit with both cavalry and infantry units, you have to do a test for the infantry to charge - the cavalry must charge. You may get a combined arms attack, but like countercharging, you can't be sure it happens.
I liked the comp and will certainly play again. But I want the choice of support to be a bit more complex rather than just pick cavalry support or end up at the tail of the comp.
Cam