Y'know I don't really think the game was unbalanced at all. The "balance" problem to me is that town had no CONTROL.
Basically in a good balanced game (IMO) town should get about 2 mislynches. (this can be more or less depending on PRs, and can grow/shrink depending on how well the town PRs/scum PRs do).
In this game, town had 0 mislynches. That's a problem.
Now, we actually lost after 3 mislynches (which I would argue is balanced), BUT scum missed 3 town-aligned NKs (Galz, Munch, and double-killing shraeye...I'm not counting Dsell's double-life here).
That means that each mislynch that town could live through required a mis-kill by scum. In other words, town could only stay in the game due to scum choices. (actually a good vig-shot by Eevee could have gotten us back into the game).
Here's how town can win the game without help from scum
(15: 3v3v9)
Town lynch MU day1
2 town die N1
(12: 2v3v7)
Town lynch MU day2
2 town die N2
(9: 1v3v5)
Town lynch MU day3
1 town die N3
(7: 3v4)
Town lynch Maquis each following day, and die at night.
End result: town wins!
Any mislynch, and town loses in the above scenario.
Scum had to kill scum for town to have a reasonable chance of winning (I would argue requiring all successful lynches is unreasonable). Now, is requiring scum to help town to win imbalanced? Not necessarily. Technically if town knows they're out of the game after a mislynch, that means that scum needs to work to keep town in the game as otherwise their incentive to lynch the opposing team is reduced, and hence it's harder for scum to win (unless they have an advantage over the other team). At some point the game is so lost it doesn't matter what town does and hence they no-lynch and scum has to NK each other.
It's interesting, and could arguably be balanced, but I think it wouldn't be fun to play town in that game (i.e. with the knowledge that I needed to depend on scum to keep me in the game).