The colourful phrasing of the "kebab" line suggests to me that the reviewer should not be taken as literally saying attacking stakes causes casualties to infantry. If I were CA, I would have the stakes negate the cavalry charge bonus, not cause casualties and until I hear definitively otherwise, that's what I'll assume is going to happen.

Extending that negate charge effect to infantry would be defensible - pallisades, field entrenchments, abatis etc have been used throughout history to take some of the bite out of an assault. If you had a choice between receiving an infantry charge in the open or behind stakes, which would you choose? In game, the effect would probably be mild as infantry charge bonuses are modest.