From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
It's the e-book pdf manual on the disk that came with the game. 32 mb - so too large to pm you.I haven't checked to see if there's a downloadable copy.
But, whilst I'm here, having just about defended Singapore.
1. If using artillery to attack is it right you might as well always put "ignore losses" because it's one way traffic ?
2. Are scenarios generally designed to be historical, or balanced to make an even game?
1. Each loss level means one more round (10% of the turn) used up. So usually yes, but if you're shooting for as many rounds as possible and are confident of getting them, it might be worth holding back.
2. It depends on the scenario. Some are designed with a focus on historical accuracy, some for an interesting game. There's really no need to sacrifice balance in either case, as one can just move the goalposts to let the better player win on points even if the battle is lost. If a scenario is not balanced it's almost certainly because it hasn't been properly playtested.
Frankly, producing a scenario which is both realistic and playable is a hugely challenging and time consuming exercise- and this increases exponentially with the size and scope of the scenario concerned. The majority of scenarios are churned out at breathtaking speed and as such are often problematic by any measure you care to name. Of course it's often hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps the best impartial indicator is the completeness of design notes, and especially if there's a version history. This latter suggests the designer went back and changed elements of the scenario on the basis of playtesting.