I haven't worked on this project in quite awhile but I have to disagree with many of the blatant errors in this review.
First off, some of you guys seem to be more ultra-narrow-minded than the most conservative of religious leaders. The reality is that terrain differs stylistically based on what each map tries to convey. World War 1, representing the entire Eurasian/North African area, is clearly an abstraction of the land. Thus, the terrain too is in abstraction and wouldn't be detailed like one might terrain a village or lake - considering that, putting a "fallen log" down as a doodad would symbolically place a fallen log the size of a dozen square acres. Anyone who has played Europa Universalis 3, Hearts of Iron 2, or any paradox title knows what I'm referring to by this terrain abstraction.
Second, it is not "severely imbalanced." Perhaps the reviewer was a complete newb and went against a team of people with much experience in the game. Yet that is a reality in every single map that exists - newbs get owned by experienced players. To verify my claim, I offer up the proof that I can beat the reviewer on either side, allies or central.
Third, the claim that it lacks originality because of "seeing many maps such as this one out there" are flagrantly absurd.
http://mapgnome.org/query/162937/sort-hosted/east/1
Search Mapgnome, for example, and the only "world war one" that pops up is this (ISH of course was created afterwards, directly inspired by mine when I disappeared for a bit).