The A26.4 Balance provisions in FT181 are NA because SSR 2 has a unique way of determining sides. Under the standard method, players bid for the sides they prefer to play. However, SSR2 compels both players to make a bid
for the Germans. Neither player can bid directly for the Norwegians. This is an important point that I will return to shortly.
The number of hexes that the Germans have to Control at game's end
is the balance provision. More hexes makes it harder on the Germans, and vice versa.
The elegance of the Catanzaro Balace System (CBS) is that it is, to some extent, "self-balancing" over time. The more play the scenario receives, the more likely the ASL community will come to some agreement on an optimal number of building/rubble hexes that the Germans can Control by game's end. However, this doesn't take into account a particular player's strengths and weaknesses on the attack or the defence. Therefore, it's possible that a player who feels more confident on the attack will "over" bid in order to secure the Germans. Similarily, a player who prefers to defend in "The Bet" may deliberately "under" bid in order to score the Norwegians.
What about tied bids, you ask? Shouldn't the loser of the tiebreaker dr get Balance?
To begin with, Enrico deliberately excluded an A26.4 Balance provision from his design. If we stick with the designer's intent, then the onus is squarely on each player to bid accordingly. Unfortunately, LFT
did include A26.4 provisions on the card. But they're nonsensical.
Because both players effectively bid German, the winner of any tiebreaker automatically gets the Germans. So how does replacing an 8-1 with a 9-1 in the
German OB, or
removing an 8-0 leader from the Norwegian OB, for that matter, help the Defender's cause? Both provisions strengthen the Germans!
----------------
CBS is a clever way to determine sides, because players can bid according to their strengths and weaknesses in a series of gradations, adding or subtracting one hex at a time. IMO, one hex either way is generally less important than the skills which a player brings to the attack or the defence.
To paraphrase a certain PM, "the budget, uh um, the scenario will, uh, balance itself."
Each scenario contains a section entitled "Balance" which proposes a variation to the basic scenario format which is advantageous for the stated side. Whenever both players wish to play the same side in a scenario, they decide the matter with a dr and the loser of the dr gets to claim the Balance provision of the scenario for his side as a consolation.