I've said this in another posting but it is topical, so I'll say it again.
I appreciate the efforts of scenario designers regardless of whether the scenario is easy or arduous or even unwinnable for me.
I try them and draw conclusions by how easily or otherwise I can get on first time.
If it is too easy and the scenario's general feel grips me, I'll get in there and change things (enemy troops morale and experience, objective positioning or values, number of turns, visibility etc.), then try again.
If I get whipped several times regardless of the fact that by the third or fourth attempt I pretty well know where everything is, I'll hack it in reverse and see what difference it makes.
I am not bothered by the idea of "cheating" if I'm playing the AI, I view it as a learning experience.
Playing between human opponents would be different, of course, but then if one is playing against a far superior adversary then maybe one needs a game where the Great Master of the situation has some handicap (they do this in Golf very successfully).
If I had a regular gaming partner and one of us regularly emerged as superior to the other, I would probably want to tilt the plying field to give the weaker partner a sporting chance (especially if it is me!). This could be achieved by agreeing to modify a scenario in favour of the weaker player.
I appreciate that to some "purists" who may feel that the only game that counts is the first one you play of any particular scenario, in its intended format, this may sound like heresy of the highest order.
They have their way of appreciating the game, I have mine. It's all about having fun.
------------------
Fabs
, in good fun of course!). 
