played this for the first time today. map has some fairly significant wayfinding / mental mapping issues, every route is the same width so i dont know whats a main route vs. a flank, and i think that distinction is necessary in tf2 to create fights larger than 2v2. also the objective areas have no signage, and are generally pretty small - theres nothing spatially making them feel important (besides the bridge at A, that one is good). lastly, pretty much every boundary wall is the same height, which makes sense for a city map, but it means i can't intuitively tell if theres more layout behind a wall or not.
I also feel like this map was designed sort of like a 5CP map with an intended push and pull, and i dont know if that works for RD. 5CP is designed under the notion that backcapping is the worst possible thing (which it is in 5CP) but i think RD requires backcapping to a certain extent? if the map is going to operate with a push and pull where i cant easily slip past the enemy then id just rather play 5CP. RD is never going to be better at fulfilling that kind of gameplay.
so, with regards to the above comment, mid just isn't wide or long enough to work. getting into mid should be easy, and getting across mid should be risky. id use asteroid and landfall as examples for what i think an RD mid should look like.
also everything feels like a csgo map. i can tell theres interesting rotations and tactics to this map, but only if you pretend theres half as many players who are slower and have less range.