Welcome to WWN Kody.
I think that it's best not to have perfect symmetry in a battlefield because that can lead to predictability. I'm actually going to use a video game reference here because I think it illustrates things well and it may be more relatable for some posters. In Age of Empires III whenever you load a particular map you know certain things about the map, for instance, if I play the Bayou map I know that the map will be swampy with cypress trees and variously scattered islands and supplies of wildlife, however, I do not know where the herds of deer will be or even where particular islands will be. The game mixes it up every time and the map is never perfectly linear. Each side has its own advantages and disadvantages that are even but not balanced.
I'm not sure if anyone remembers the show Deadliest Warrior, but it's kind of a similar analogy. No one wants to see Napoleon vs Wellington or French Knight vs English Knight. If the show was apples to apples it would get boring quickly. People wanted to see Viking vs Samurai and Spartan vs Ninja, skill vs skill but asymmetrical. Some of the most interesting fights in duelfest were when both guns had different advantages, e.g. the XP 150 has a high rate of fire, but the Colossus has superior range, or the XXP 275 has double barrels but the Gorgon is more powerful. Fighting with the XXP 275 against CPS blasters on the Hudson was difficult, but a lot of fun. Side note, but I have been guilty of going for more balanced games in the past with the all BBT rounds at MOAB, but part of that was just out of pure novelty as such a thing had never been done before.
I think that St. John's Woods was an incredible battlefield that exemplies 30-50ft fighting in a variety of circumstances and also allows for maneuver without easily being spotted. I regret that most of you never got to see the rest of the battlefield. There was a young pine forest that was easy to move through but also thick enough to hide troops at a distance. It bordered on an epic high grass field with scattered wild plumb bushes. The field was probably only slightly larger than a tennis court, which I think is a great size as it is big enough to sneak around but small enough to encourage battle.
Changes in topography are also important. Abrupt, but ultimately small, changes in terrain seem to encourage the best results, along with slightly rolling terrain. Abrupt, but ultimately small changes are like a rocky outcrop of about 5ft in height looking over a path. It's big enough to be critical but not so massive as to encourage an entire team to camp at the top of a hill. Similarly, stream embankments can be great place to hide and ambush, and streams themselves are great in that they form physical barriers. I find the best size streams are the ones that have several places that can be jumped but are large enough to inhibit crossing without a great amount of caution.
The battlefield that I am currently looking at around here has water on 4 sides, a large river (Neuse) to the south, Mark's Creek, which is about the size of the brook in Ridgewood, to the west, a smaller stream comprable to the one behind my house to the northwest, and a small marshy pond surrounded by trees to the northeast. The battlefield is mostly flat to gently rolling, but it has several instances of the abrupt but ultimately small changes that I was talking about, such as a 4-5 ft drop off from dense woods into the wide sandy shore of Mark's Creek, a 3 ft ditch that runs through the middle of the battlefield, more drop offs to the other creek and river, and a small depression on the northwest side of the battlefield. This depression is about 100 ft x 100 ft and is mostly open (but shaded due to the canopy of giant trees) compared to the dense woods surrounding it. The ground slopes up about 3-5 feet almost like a circular bowl on all sides of this depression and there are giant stumps and overturned trees in many strategic places around the depression. The changes in cover and height are enough to provide advantages and disadvantages but are not enough to allow hill camping.
I think that this discussion perhaps warrants us to put together some drawings of fantasy battlefields to get ideas. We have not even gotten into the discussion on buildings and manmade structures yet, which are also very important.
*side note* Some of the most intense battles have involved Rob vs me on opposite teams. Our styles are different but we have a lot in common as well which makes us incredibly complimentary. When you put us on opposite sides thing usually get very intense. The one exception being if we are just playing a one hit scores battle in a small semi open area as this does not allow for maneuver warfare and Rob usually ends up just trying to block me and the field does not allow for us to disappear and reattack, causing Rob and I to essentially cancel each other out. What other warriors are usually really dynamic against each other?