I don't think test games are necessary. If you've played a lot of games you can tell how maps will work out. For example, Sydney has a lot of bonuses with few territories, worth a lot. This makes for a terrible 2 player/team game (the first to play will be a long way ahead, even if they don't drop a bonus) and also makes for ugly escalating games (too many dead ends, low connectivity and again, a lot of bonuses, make eliminations unfeasible), but it would play quite well as a flat rate or no cards game, especially in the fog.
There aren't as many game options as people are claiming. Two player and two team games essentially work the same way, regardless of cards (your gains are their losses; first to play has an advantage). Then multiplayer (and multiteam) games can be divided into flat rate/no cards games (where the primary source of armies is the map) and escalating (where the primary source is cards). Most maps can be accommodated to play well in these three scenarios, and still leave a lot of freedom.
The primary qualities altering gameplay are bonuses, connectivity (the average number of neighbours) and dead ends (territories with only 1 neighbour). Higher
connectivity improves escalating and 2 player (or team) games; lower makes a better no cards game. There is a large margin where they both work well (somewhere between 3 and
. Very high connectivity (think Waterloo) improves a 2 player game more than an escalating game, because the latter are affected by
dead ends. Dead ends slow down escalating games (because they are very simple blocks, and so make eliminations difficult), but improve the no cards game (two territories for the defense cost of one). Again, a large range where both work well (1 for every 15 or more territories).
Bonuses can be arranged any way the mapmaker likes, but the values of each will change the games. Any amounts at all are fine for no card games (they'll just result in more fighting for the valuable regions, hence more cost associated with capturing them), and high values don't change escalating games much, except to make them last longer. The bonuses should be structured towards 2 player games, since a player or team who starts with one can make it difficult for their opponents to do anything if it is too high.
Number of territories has less effect then the emphasis on it would imply. It increases the advantage of playing first in 2 player/team games, but has almost no effect on the other two playing styles.
)
