For me, it is about the maps, lack of target variety, and a narrow strategic system.
Maps: there are no snow maps and no desert in the MA. Why? If the odd-ball map "Mundanao" can be used in the MA then I ask why cant any of the snow or desert maps be converted for use in the MA??? is it really that complicated??? There are some very nice player made winter and desert skins that could be used. I, along with many other players are weary of constant green-green-green maps. Also, is there a possibility to rotate the front lines on some of the bigger maps, maybe each team swap 4-5 bases on teh other side of the lake or front? There are probably hundreds of bases out there that have no tank battles yet provide great terrain but are so far from the front that the opportunity for them to get used it nil.
Target Variety: There are no targets to hammer that are not bases, towns, or heavily defended strategic strongholds. Prior to the new strategic game, a group of players (or just one) could take NOE jabos to a radar factory, fuel refinery, etc, and pound it flat. Those are non-existent now. There are no targets to try and stealthily fly to, quickly hammer, and get out. I like the large complexes to bomb, but they are an "all or none" mission. I'd like to see those old strat targets return if for nothing else just something to have to attack that isn't heavily defended.
Narrow strategic system: Perhaps that is a bit broad of a statement, but I'd like to see even more repercussions for hammering the strategic complexes in AH. When the HQ goes down, there is a mad scramble to try and get it resupplied. I'd like to see HTC develop something similar for the different factories. Maybe there is such a thing as once the ammo factory is down below %50 there are no 1000 lb and larger bombs available??? Etc.
I also think ammo bunkers and barracks should have a tiered system similar to the fuel tanks. Why not??? This all or none stuff has absolutely no flavor. Likewise, why not vary the troops carriers in the number of troops they can carry??? Why are we stuck on 10? Give the carries their due! Let the C47 carry 20, the LVT 16, the M3 and 251 12, and the keep the jeep at 3. Why not? Why is 10 the magic number for troops needed for capture? Give the defenders more to shoot at, stop and think how many request have been made to involve infantry that much more? Allowing MORE troops running on the ground might be a good start? It will give the MG's something to do, and gv's a reason to carry HE shells.