Suez is fucking terrible on Conquest from what I can see. I honestly hope it plays better on Operations. Fao Fortress looks really unbalanced too. Amiens and St Quentin look good though.
Suez is boring. It's more interesting than Locker/Metro as it's more open and utilises BF1's urban layouts, but it can't escape the trap of a linear capture point progression that consists of each side throwing themselves against each other until one maybe breaks through.
My entire attraction to Battlefield, and what makes the series so unique to me, is maps that are comprised of every single element built into game operating under conquest rules. That, to me, is Battlefield; aircraft, tanks, jeeps, infantry, all combined together capturing points that are open, vertical, urban, and so on. St Quentin is very, very good at embodying this philosophy.
Amiens is good I think, but it's also very urban, so no aircraft and tanks are ultimately confined to the streets. What I like about St Quentin and Sinai is the flexibility; tanks
can end up in streets, and a million other places to. Amiens doesn't have that diversity, even if it's a fun map.
Fao is just boring, unfortunately. As players get more accustomed to the layout it could become interesting, but the fortress itself just seems like this isolated conflict zone rather than a cohesive integration into the conquest map flow.
I'm just being picky though, and entirely to my own tastes, which doesn't mean I necessarily dislike some maps, so much as greatly prefer others. And I appreciate DICE's efforts to encourage map diversity. If I had it my way though, maximum selfishness, I'd really be building
every conquest map to accommodate
all vehicles and play styles, with a proper open capture point match flow. It's these maps and them moments they provide that clearly distinguish Battlefield as a franchise unlike anything else, to me.
_/¯ I actually like Suez.
