I don't think there is anywhere a fundamental reason why a 12-point map would fail where a 10-point map would work (I've seen a lot of terrible 10-point maps, whereas crossroads is an objectively good 12-point map; right?). However, I know for a fact that a 12-point map would discourage call-in meta more efficiently than a 10-point map.
The reason why a high-resource map wouldn't work well are rooted in the poor state of balance. A 12-point map doesn't create imbalance. It takes core-game imbalances (e.g., unit pricing imbalances) and magnifies them to the point that you'd have to be blind to ignore them (or only play competitive 1v1 in tournament maps).
In effect, a 12-point map is the best leverage we (the unofficial maintenance crew) can have to ask for flushing out the last remaining shit-stains of late-game balance. e.g.,:
- Repair speed imbalances (those make a world of difference when you have a large amount of tanks)
- Poor unit pricing (e.g., OKW P4/P5 cost same amount of manpower as OST P4/P5, but are worlds apart)
- Ridiculous popcap values (especially after critical mass has been achieved)
- Ridiculous off-map abilities, which you will see more often (e.g., Arty-Cover of yesteryear and, now, JU-87)
- Factions that have no useful ways of burning excess munitions/fuel (e.g., for Soviets, except for demo-charge spam)
Those imbalances are there. And, while 12-point maps will exaggerate those imbalances, it's not the map that created them. It's pure balancing oversight (and a myopic scope, of course).
So. In my opinion, unless the map poses significant issues that make it unplayable in the forseeable future (e.g., after FBP hits), don't ask the map-maker to make it yet another copy-paste of the same map. A map with resource inflation means you have to provision for a higher frequency of vehicles and abilities. That's great; it makes it not feel like every other 1v1 map out there.
- - - -
I understand that over the years, there have been some mapping guidelines, do's and don'ts for mapmakers to follow in order for their maps to be considered successful.
Those guidelines, however, are not the Bible or anything. A good creative process is taking those guidelines and (after mastering them) start bending them to elicit a particular type of playstyle.
Moreover, those guidelines are not infallible either. They're an educated guess of what seems to be a good idea based on previous trials of those ideas. However, balance changes, and the same guidelines may no longer apply.
For instance:
Elevation
- Everybody knows that adding elevation on hotspot areas is bad, because tank projectiles tend to collide with the terrain, right?
- Well, wrong; we can fix projectiles by making them ignore said elevation, and it's all good. We can also select which units should have projectiles that should ignore elevation or not. With those changes, elevation makes it so that the specialists perform better than the generalists in their intended role.
Garrisons
- Everybody knows that you should avoid garrisons at chokepoints at all costs, right?
- Well, wrong. Garrisons have evolved to become cancerous over the years, and that status has only been solidified by adding the insta-hop-in/out system.
Map geometry
- Everybody knows that FRPs make long-maps imbalanced, right?
- Well, FRPs are changing
Long, narrow corridors
- Everybody knows that you should avoid long corridors like the plague, right?
- While this is mostly true, the primary reason for this is live-version walking stuka. However the stuka is getting fixed.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
