The real issue here, gentlemen, is stopping a server blowout so one side does not get a landslide victory which inevitably results in the other side just giving up.
People only play a game if they still have 'some' chance of winning, so the aim then becomes how to make a campaign competitive for both sides without premalising one side for actually just playing well. Campaign competitivity is criticised when side has a perceived advanatge over another side for a plethora reasons, whether it be unbalanced numbers, unbalanced shiplist, unbalanced VCs, etc. etc. etc.
But let's suppose we are able to solve all of these problems 100% and create a perfectl;y balanced server. What would be the end result? A stalemate of course. If we balance each side for missions run, for example, we are 'adjusting' the VCs so that each side effectively has the same number of missions. If the Wild Geese system is perfected, then here we are balancing player numbers perfectly as well. And assuming all other things are also kept equal, then inevitably this can only lead to a stalemate.
I put it to you then, that balancing a server should not be our goal AFTER the server has started. All teams should start with exactly the same chance for winning, yes, and in this regard, sever balance should be achieved before the campaign begins, but once it has started it should be left to run its course. And if problems are discovered along the way, then we create solutions to those problems for the next campaign. In my opinion, if a server does blowout one way or the other, then let it. The server may conclude prematurely and a winner anounced, but that just means we start the next server soon, and hopefully with a better starting setup.