I'll get right to your questions:
Does the gameplay seem at least somewhat balanced? I don't see how it wouldn't be... but then, I have overriding concerns (below).
Does anyone see a game type that would be difficult or impossible or downright unfun on this map?Considering the cost of moving across the no-man's land, I can see a lot of games coming down to two opponents/teams controlling opposite sides and then waiting until they have a big enough stack to move across, and while you're building up your opponent builds up as well and the game just becomes a big boring war of escalation. And since the bunker is the only safe haven from bombardments, there could be a tendency to just build stacks there. As somebody who is stuck in a few dull build-up games, I would be concerned that this map could lend itself to some "unfun." What saves Arms Race from this potential problem is that you can actually eliminate your opponent via bombardments only, and once you hold the warhead you actually get enough armies to do so - but no, I'm not saying this map needs a nuclear warhead.
But nothing would seem to be unplayable... fog games would be especially intriguing on this map.
Do the instructions make sense? No. They really don't, and I've read the first post. My concerns:
• Alright, it took me a really long time to figure out that the six boxes in the legend are territories.
Is there any way they can be somehow better worked into the playable areas of the map - or better set apart from the legend text - because right now they just seem like a confusing bit of legend. Or at least some graphic other than a grey rectangle to draw attention to them??
• "Trenches" and "Foxholes" could be better defined - not everybody who plays this game is a native english speaker; would it kill you to have a graphic next to each?
• "No Man's Land Respawn at half their original strength" means what exactly? That they are killer neutrals that respawn at half their original value, or that when you have been bombarded down to zero they revert back to half of their value? I know, that's not possible given the XML limits at the site, but most players won't know that. If territories are killer neutrals, it wouldn't hurt to say that explicitly.
Another thing I'm failing to understand is the role that the machine guns will play. The first post says that the No Man's Land territories are killer neutrals, so really it would be quite stupid to waste any armies bombarding an enemy in no-man's land since they are just going to revert back anyway. Machine guns would be useful for hitting machine guns, but once you figure that out and you get whacked by the opposing machine gun you'll realize the futility of retaking it.
The only other function I can see of the machine guns would be to soften up territories that your teammates intend to hit, but it would be the same as just giving your teammates those armies to attack with themselves.
And I'd like to point out that the confusion about whether or not the machine guns can attack each other remains valid; it clearly states that the machine guns can attack no-man's land except the trenches and foxholes, by which one would assume that the guns can hit each other since it does not say that they can't. However, there are other exceptions to stated rules in your legend: the no-man's land territories are all killer neutrals, except the foxholes, according to the legend; according to this one would assume that the no-man's land trenches and machine guns ARE killer neutrals, since it doesn't say that they aren't.
So which is it - should we go by the letter of the legend, or trust our instincts based on what we gather by looking at the map? Because my instincts tell me that there are sandbags around the machine guns which protect them from each other.