Pirate voice commands haven't been planned, and only a few battlecries were made. This will further be limited to the ship crew rankers next patch.
Spoiler
Although I haven't played the Beta yet, so I don't know the complete impact of the current change, I think that lowering the range of the heavy cav sword isn't the best of ideas, so I have a suggestion regarding that.
- Fix the model of the heavy cav sword, so that it actually is 3cm longer than it is now, to take away the 'ghost' range of the sword.
- To balance the length of the sword, slightly decrease the damage done. (36c to 35 or 34)
- Either slightly increase horse speed and manueverability, or revert the health decrease
The reason I'd like to see this is that heavy cav should be able to charge infantry right in the face, and, as of now (without beta), the sword is exactly the right range to outrange a musket, but only when you really use the very tip of your blade.
And I still do not understand why you guys don't take away the Russian Cossacks, and give UK it's much needed hussars. If you get rid of the Cossacks, you won't have any 'too many units' memory issues.
Other than that, brilliant job on the fixes and changes!
The sword model is accurate length... it would look silly if its longer, to balance the swords, lowering the length as we did actually reduced the damage it can do on the tip... I have yet to see too much problems with this..... Maybe play a bit more guys and give me proper feedback then speculating on a change-log.. 
My main point is that I'm afraid that with the current changes, the heavy cavalry will lose even more of it's unique features, which are heavy armored and heavy hitting cavalry. Now, I know the changes are slight, but I still feel like it's a step in the wrong direction.
I think a lot of people dislike it when the class they probably play the most gets a bit of a nerf. I am an infantry man myself (used to be cavalryman until I found the wild delights of a bayonet) and I suppose I would dislike someone messing with my bayonet.
However during gameplay on the Aussie servers the ghostly range of heavy cav swords has been quite noticeable and made it difficult for opponents to judge the safe distance from said cav sword. This ghostly range obviously made it extremely dangerous for hussars to attack heavy cav and while that's a good thing I believe the addition of hit points to the heavy cavalry man should help out in balancing the issue, especially given that the sword range hasn't been nerfed that much either. The ghost range was also a major complaint with the release of the last patch so there was enough reason for FSE to act upon it.
The problem is that every time a patch is released and some balancing is done; half the community will love it because they've been asking for it and the other half will be vehemently against it because it either affects their playing style/favorite class, balancing preferences or it interferes with what they've gotten used to so far.
MORE PEOPLE DOWNLOAD AND TRY THE BETA.
The damn servers are near empty, yet this thread is bulging.
Beta sucks. Don't change anything in cavalry, exept the "ghost range".
Hating off
With that attitude I am unsure why FSE even bothers to release patches tbh.
Spoiler
About the new units, It is not only a case of memory issues making new regiments, the actual making of uniforms is also a time costly business, which we will not invest into Napoleonic Wars at this time, we have to move on towards our new project, Battle Cry of Freedom....
You can't expect that a year after release of a 10 dollar DLC, mind you, mostly sold for 2.50 or less to add so much content.
Maybe you are expecting a bit too much of it?, For instance 60 dollar games don't even patch much after 3 months since release, and won't add as much new content as we do..
Hell in call of duty you pay 15 dollar for a two new maps DLC.... 
Considering that I myself have a bit of experience with modeling and texturing, I understand it is hard to create a new texture for a new unit. However, I do not agree with your reasoning that we're expecting too much. If you wish to call it a DLC (which it technically is), I think it's a rather unique one. Rather than adding to an original game, you guys took a game, and created a total conversion of it, with it's own playerbase. Therefore, in reality it would come closer to a game than a DLC. Also, following your reasoning, indie games (which cost between 10-30 euros mostly) would almost never patch, which isn't quite the case.
Also, seeing the skill of the texturers on this forum, wouldn't it be a nice idea to have like a texturing contest between them? Whoever can create the best texture for a British Hussar unit, gets to have his texture in the game!
I do hope you will consider adding this new unit, because I think it will greatly add on the game.
Thanks for hearing me out!
The price unfortunately doesn't come close to a game and rather is more priced as a DLC. A company can't live off the pleasure of its customers alone, it does need to put bread on the table and of the 10 dollars of the actual game FSE only received around 2.5 per sale after Paradox and TW got their share. While its not a rule that low budget games don't consistently/constantly release patches, the exception doesn't make for a rule in itself.
But putting that aside; the limitations here are also resource orientated in that the warband engine can only handle so many textures on the load before you have to start telling windows XP users to alter their boot ini to use /3GB. That would result in more pissed off customers and a huge spam load of bug fix messages about crashes to desktop.
You can't expect that a year after release of a 10 dollar DLC, mind you, mostly sold for 2.50 or less to add so much content.
Maybe you are expecting a bit too much of it?, For instance 60 dollar games don't even patch much after 3 months since release, and won't add as much new content as we do..
I don't know what we can hope for in BCoF then
Given that there probably won't be a publisher or a company withholding the source code of its engine to take a share of the profits? More cash for development time. As to your own expectations I don't think anyone knows what exactly you want given your limited one liners. Basically according to you FSE should not have messed with cavalry. So by this logic and given your indifference to the other changes it would have been better they hadn't released a patch at all.
