I'm having a good time playing on this map so far.

The 3-per-neutral distribution makes it very tough not to play on very classic combos around small bonuses, because slow starts are even worse than usual, considering the early card has to be indefinitely delayed most often in case of early encounters. It does hurt the flexibility of play and games should be decided pretty much always on picks only. If neutrals give more resistance, at least the initial distribution should be more generous, like 10s instead of 4s (let's have in mind that 4s came up to restrict the 3x3 attacks to one-turn expansions on Mid Earth, which has no sense in that map for instance). Then there would be other options than heavy combos, and sparse play could still be considered to more dynamic, unstable games.

*I'm having a good time playing on this map so far.*

Let me change that for you :-D

Other than that, I agree with you that the increase in neutrals should have come with an increase in initial armies. With 4 initial armies per territory + 5 income you have 3x3+5 = 14 armies to attack with on your 1st turn. Against neutrals of 2, this meant you had two 100% attacks and another two of 80%. Now with neutrals of 3, you only get two attacks of 94% and another one of 39%, which means your chances of completing your 4-territory-bonus in a single turn when cluster-picking have dropped from 100% to 34%.