Albany uses a bidding system. You bid in points. Those points you give to get the side you wish are then spent by your opponent to make changes on the card. Highest bid get's their side of choice. If I bit German 2 and you bid German 3, I would get the Germans and you would get to make up to three points of modifications to the card. Those changes are published by Steve in advance, as is the list. People can prepare and have their own thoughts on what the right side is and what to bid.
Refer to
this link for the discussion below. That is a partial list of the PBS for 2019.
Say we decided to play AP140 Misty Morning Mayhem. Let's further say you think it balanced at A3 and bid A3. I think it balanced at A2 and bid A2. You would get the Americans based on your bid of 3 and I could spend three points under the American list to modify the card (For instance selecting E and increasing the game length to 9.5). If we both thought it was balanced at A3, the bid would be set at A3 and we would dice for sides, winner getting the American and the Loser getting 3 points to spend. In both our opinions, the game is pretty close to balanced at this point.
Where this breaks down IMO, is when we disagree. Say the total value for each sides "strength" is 10 as printed on the card. The 10 is made up just for the purposes of discussion. Our opinions on this game differ. I bid G3, you bid A3. Under PBS, we would each get the side we bid on with the other side getting those balance provisions. Now for the sake of argument, as the German, I thought this was balanced at 10G 13A, hence by 3G bid, giving up thee points to the Americans. You thought it was balanced at 10A, 13G. Now we are playing a 13:13 game. We are each happy because we think we have the overpowered side with even more material than we need while the other player has the dog side. Neither of us think this thing is balanced but away we go.
There is also another system out there called ABS which works similar. It was even printed on some of the Aussie scenario pack cards. I think this system's biggest difference is only one side gets the points. If I bid A3 and you bid G2, as I bid 3, I would get the Americans yielding 3 points to you. I would get no points for your bid. Now at least one of us feels this is balanced (me). You think I am an idiot for taking the dog side and giving material to get it. (or maybe you think I am an idiot already and just dumb for also giving you 3 points
)
IMO, PBS works best when both players are prepared, close in skill level, and have done their homework before coming to the tournament. As this is the expectation for Albany, this works for them.
IMO, ABS works best when there is a disparity between players. The better player is likely to bid for the preferred side and be willing to give up an honest amount to do so. The last thing a better player wants to do is bid A0 and lose the DR and be stuck with the dog side in a scenario. IMO, this method is much friendlier to new players.
Personally, I always liked the way Guy Chaney's bidding system. He would sit down and say "let's add a Panther and I take the Germans". Then there would be a long discussion on what the balance should be between the two players. It was Guy's way of sussing out someone who was trying to shark him. Of course, Guy was a pretty big shark himself
-- jim