Removing the para on dmz is a bad idea imo. the extra cash and town of garrisons on L is a good balance; but more importantly, the paradrop is part of the gameplay on that map- its an important element of what makes the map interesting. Removing the paradrop, making exactly even the cash and flattening Rside access to gems will significantly change the way the map plays- and reduce its complexity. Considering DMZ has been a favorite for a long time, I dont think its necessary to change it.
I've always felt that the map is unfair for bl because tr can rush with first 3 tanks + para as fodder and would most likely win.
That's why I thought it would be a good Idea to remove the airport. After I removed it, I realized that tr cannot build to the gems anymore without moving mcv so I decided to flatten the surface.
What do you think of leaving the map it's original state and giving L a para as well?
I think the changes to hammer may also unduely change the map gameplay- and i think may actually make the map less balanced. Under this configuration, I think bl now has a great advantage. The fact that the gems are reasonably close by, and that you can strech even closer (2nd ore patch is immediatly beside mcv) means that BL can now efficiently collect gems without moving their mcv (no delay). In addition, they can still enjoy an easy anti-scout and tremendous security of their eco. They will also have 2 ore patches (1 very large) to continue tech development without relocating. TL too, will have this same advantage of nearby gems without moving mcv, but without the same degree of eco security. Overall, I would say these changes go too far to rebalance what I think may be a simpler problem.
I have to disagree about the anti-scout statement for BL. Since BL will have to stretch to gems now, they will no longer be able to place a centry right at the entrance. That was my main goal when placing the gems there. I do comprehend the other arguements though. To be honest, H & S was just an experiment, I'm not even sure if it needs to be balanced. My main goal for that map was to remove the bridge repair bug in the first place.
For the alamo, again I'd have to say I feel the airport/derrick asymetry adds complexity to the gameplay- but I do feel the br oil too greatly impacts the outcome. To rebalance this map, I would suggest reducing the income rate of the br oil to that a regular derrick and perhaps moving it closer to tl (while also moving the tech airport closer to bl). Regarding the arrangement of the alamo and gems- this layout allows B to lose the garrison and still strech and collect at mid, while T cannot do this. I feel the gems must be placed on either side of the alamo, just as in the original- this balances the angles for attack. It does appear however that under this layout, if both players strech toward the alamo, top should place their barracks 2-3 cells closer than B. If so, then the alamo could be moved downward slightly, so it is exactly centered. But even then, the two nearby garrisons of T (by the derrick) will have much greater influence than those of B, which might offer a different unfair advantage. At this point the map would play quite differently, but I'm not convinced it would be for the worse- some testing could check this.
I think both players should be able to stretch to the gems with the same effort. I could be wrong though. This is something that needs to be tested online, as the AI is not the best testing partner here. We can have some games on that map if you like to try it out.
For GSF- why not also move the west derrick closer to T? Bl captures it in plenty of time, so they can afford to have it be slightly further away. That way, all spawns could place their first refinery off the E/W oils. It would also put more pressure on bl who currently enjoys the luxery of being able to make a conscript before engineer and still capture in time. Other imbalances include the relative nearness of bm gems to the south oil- while the north oil is much further away. Here, I'd be inclined to make the tm gems more accessible from the north oil, rather than distancing the bm gems. Another minor imbalance is the height difference between the ore at tl, br spots. The ore of br is elevated by 2 cells and placed in such a way as to leave it a fair distance from the refinery. The tl ore is sunk only 1 cell and placed such that a 2nd refinery can soon be set directly beside the remaining ore. I think its too insignificant to address, but I do believe it was factored into the original balance consideration for this map.
The only thing i considered quite unfair about this map was the fact that B always gets 3 gem fields while T only has 2. The other stuff does not really affect the balance in my eyes.
For Lake Blitzen, moving the bl spawn is probably a good idea, but it still appears as tho T is closer. If the the Bl spawn is moved, then I think both the L side derrick and bl ore should be moved as well. The oil needs to be placed so that it is a virtual lock that L side captures it- if bl spawn is too far away that might not be the case. Also, there are some elevated ground patches surrounding the new bl spawn, perhaps those should be revised slightly so streching upward to the ore and westward toward the gems is easier. As for the second airport- I agree of course that 1 each is more symetrical, but an additional paradrop will affect the gameplay experience- under some 'no eat' arrangements the paradrop is to be left uncaptured- I might favor removing the bottom airport ahead of adding a second one to T.
Ah, Lake Blitzen. I wasn't sure what to do with this one at the beginning. People always say that BL is unfair because of the distance to the gem patch. It would be possible to move the gems closer to BL, however, that would make it unfair for BR. Moving the BL spawn closer to the gems is kind of troublesome too since the ore patch and the derrick will be too far away. Changing the position of the derrick, again, would make it unfair for TL. It's not easy to balance this one, you see.
On pinch point- how did you verify that each side now has exactly the same starting ore? It really appears the Lside has more. Also, I like the idea of placing the new ore on a plateau- but I think it should be 3 cells high, as the sinkholes are all 3 cells deep.
I've collected all ore from R while playing against the AI. Then I restarted the game and collected everything from L. After that I added ore to L until it was exactly the same amount.
I'm interested to see how the changes on dc uprising work- such a nice map but badly imbalanced at the moment..
Hmm, I dont see the gems you've added near the new airport- are they shown on this picture? Regarding the new gems at tl- that spawn is still closest to the rich courtyard and has some gems near their airport, pending the amount of gems to the 2nd airport I might opt to offer tl a smaller amount. Also, TR now seems supremely overpowered- imagine starting gems + gems from 1st airport + gems from tech depot and more gems from the new 2nd airport (if they dont agree to no eat). How can Bl compete?
The new gems are located near the Washington Monument right below the east-west road.
The tech depot is removed so TR has actually less advantages against BL. Engi eating can be a problem of couse, but it would give you an advantage on any map, even on tourney B. I know, the map might not be totally balanced yet, but I feel that with the 2nd airport it's much more enjoyable that in was before. The reason why I gave TL close gems is that it cannot build the first ref near the top airport because of the distance.
Thank you for making these edits- and for your qm videos 
I hope you don't mind my criticism- the changes reflect you gave the issues some thought- I'm just trying to do the same
Thank you for your very detailed comment, I really appreciate it. Of course I don't mind your criticism. In fact that's exactly what I was hoping for, since it's the only way how we can get fair maps in the end.
