On the contrary.
I find, for example, matches on Random Plains to be infinitely more interesting than matches on, say, Frozen Lake(Snowy Village? I forgot the name) or Port Assault. In the later two, there is really only one or two practical ways to engage the enemy. There are only a few defensive positions. There is not at all much room for maneuver, and combat always takes place in the same manner, and in the same places. On Random Plains, however, you find much more opportunity to maneuver and engage on your own terms.
I am not saying that there should not be advantageous positions -- any hill, building, line of trees, river, bridge, or whatever else you may have, can be used to one's advantage. The point is that there should not be just one central, advantageous position, nor should there be just one route of attack -- unless, of course, it is a siege map. The map should be large and diverse enough to allow teams to change their strategy and try different positions or angles of attack. A map without that flexibility is boring, because there is only "one way" to attack or defend.
Many maps try to "guide" each team to do something, like defend this position, or flank this way, etc. I find that these maps, generally, severely limit one or the other team's options, to the point that there is no variety in game plans. There winds up just being one, or perhaps at most, two feasible plans, and no other options. Players should never be lead to pursue just one or two courses of action. Diversity is what makes for a good map with re-playability.
Are you planning on making a grave yard for it? That'd be a nice touch (most churches have graveyards) & would give some more cover around the church, also slight ridges at the edge of the pathways would be a good idea (Not huge, just like up to a soldiers boots if possible).
