What things make a map good or bad in your opinion? this is all subjective, no right or wrong, I just want to see what people like.

I will start with a few of mine,

Good:
---
Interesting Bonuses
Potential for different strategies
Layered Bonuses
Large number of territories
A few "Jumps" so armies don't get stuck at one side of the map
Recognizable maps
Equally sized territories

Bad:
---
Too many connections per territory
Less than 20 territories
Long thin maps
Confusing bonuses

My personal philosophy about any kind of game, including this one, is that it's all about interesting choices.

Too few ways to attack becomes unfun, because there are no choices (let alone good ones). Too many ways to attack also becomes unfun, because it's no longer a choice, but a gamble. So you want maps that offer several ways to attack, but not too many (2-5 seems best, but variety in number matters as much or more than number). Another fun choice results from having a big open area with lots of room verses easily defended areas that don't offer much expansion. The standard Earth and Medium Earth maps offer this with Asia verses everything else.

I've found that I don't enjoy symmetrical maps, especially ones where every bonus is essentially the same (same number of pieces, same amount of bonus). It feels like none of the choices are very interesting, because they are all the same choice. This is especially true in a 1v1 scenario where diplomacy doesn't make the game more interesting.

I also don't much care for really large bonuses. 50 territories for 50 a turn will hardly ever be held onto during a war, but if it ever is, the game takes a huge swing. I prefer a fair number of smaller bonuses, which requires more strategic thought and planning than just "break the bonus."

Also **bad:**

Overlapping borders
Gaps and holes between territories