Maybe it can be different in how one makes them. Maybe its time to take a different approach.
I've always dabbled on the concept of making numerous, much smaller zones. which I unfortunately was not able to try out since I had not learned to use the terrain editor..
Imagine something like Trinity, with field distance more or less simular to FesterMA, and something like 6~7 zones per country. That would provide a nice local fight(furball), as well as putting many of the strat facilities within more realistic reach of strat players...
..........
But what intrigues me the most, is the possibility of making non-symmetric maps!
How about a Historic map with clever field placements for the three countries? Baltic was a good example, but take it to further levels.
It would be of incredible pleasure to see the Southern part of England, Northern France, and South/Western Germany in a 512x512 format.
Of course for the MA, the country in the North, in England's spot, would be the ultimately advantageous one since no direct land assault into that country is possible.
But maybe that can be compensated by making some of the features less available to that country.
Such as, the countries in the place of Germany and France would each get something like 3 TGs, but the Northern country in England's spot gets only one....
Or the Northern country position has a bit less number of fields(mayne 80~90% of other countries) to conquer, or, a vehicle assault would be much smooth and easier once someone sets foot on the Northern, island country, while GV battles and advances are much touger to fight out between the two countries based on the continent.
We've been for so long, trying to make things "fair" for all of the three countries in the MA, in exactly the same manner, that all of the three positions is basically same ol' same ol. And still, despite all that we've failed to reach perfect balance and there's always a "reset corner".
Then perhaps, why not intentionally make each of the three countries with different powers and abilities? With different strategic pros and cons?
We're fooling ourselves if we think the perfect, symmetric design layout of the maps means eaqual fights for all(except Pizza, which is literally "balanced" because all three countries are exactly alike. It is also, bland... however!)
So, make them asymmetric!
Make a Southern England, with lesser number of fields to conquer, easier to launch GV invasions once foothold is set... but with greater naval power and access to the seas than the other two, continental countries.
The continental countries are adjacent, disadvanataged that they must fight, and GV invasions are possible from the start... but they will have larger number of fields to conquer, much harder to advance by foot, and etc etc.
This might make things much more interesting, as maybe the two, continental countries would each decide to target the Island country, each seeing that it is easier to conquer than the other once foot is set.
Or maybe the players will decide to duke it out against the adjacent countries..
While the Island country tries to maintain status quo by using its more powerful naval power, making multiple assaults along the coast lines with larger total number of TGs ... maybe it can decide put all of its TGs to invade just one country, or, spread the TGs out along the coast lines of the two continental countries to defend, while looking for a chance to invade to mainlands.
It doesn't have to be exactly like the real war maps, just enough resemblance and different characteristics for three countries that it makes the fights really interesting.
