Wanted some opinions on these maps... (Updated 4-16-04, 8 villages and a city!)

Check these out:








Any opinions?

Very nice. I've yoinked them and may use them (since I can't draw maps to save my life).

They are very ordered--like the village was planned rather than growing up haphazard as people move in. Not a bad thing--what's wrong with city planning?

#1 is the best.
#2 does not work well, IMO.
#3 does look to be a little too ordered as mentioned.

They are passable but I would do something about #2.

Eosin the Red said:

#1 is the best.
#2 does not work well, IMO.
#3 does look to be a little too ordered as mentioned.

They are passable but I would do something about #2.

Click to expand...

You actually need to say what the problem is first, or it doesn't help. Your opinion is noted however...

The second village was built on reinforced platforms to deal with yearly flooding from the river. They just build the platforms, then build the buildings they want on top of it...


P.S.: And so you know, each of the villages were rebuilt about 40 years ago, after a war burned 'em out. The ordered look is actually intended for them...

Looks nice, but the layout of the streets in #1 and #3 doesn't make much sense. Perhaps for a modern-day housing development, but not for a medieval-style village!

For example, in #1, the houses north and south of the harbor have no direct access to the docks. Someone wanting to go from the leftmost large house to the docks would have to go all the way around, through the rest of the village. After a few years you would get at the very least a little footpath going all along the beach.

#3 has similar problems. Let's say someone from the large L-shaped house would like to leave the village along the northern path. They would have to aaaall the way to the south and then loop around. Even though the northern loop is almost in their backyard.

Modern housing developments are often designed to isolate inhabitants into little cul-de-sacs and loop roads. Heck, everybody uses a car to go anywhere anyway, so they don't mind having to go a couple blocks out of their way. Medieval villages are organically grown and primarily pedestrian, which makes the layout a lot more pragmatic. You can pretty much go from anywhere to anywhere else without too many detours. Even if it's only through some pedestrian shortcuts. In any case, the *main* locations in the village (such as the docks, temples, major houses) should be easily accessible.

One more thing: What's with those squares in #2 and #3? Are those perfectly square fields? Unless these people have some sort of fetish for square fields you'd never see this sort of arrangement. I would expand all the fields until they're almost touching, with no more than a wagon's width or an irrigation or drainage ditch between them.

I like them all. Too much "realism" in a village map will likely be a victim of diminishing returns (and will certainly go unappreciated by players, IMO).

First, I liked em enough to yank them all.

I like the second one best with the raised platforms. Cound'nt figure out what that was at first.

The other two maps look nice but both look too perfectly laid out and also rather alot of buildings for a village.

They look pretty nice!

I'd suggest reworking the fields a bit though: furrows tend to follow the slope of the ground so that excess rain water can drain out. There's also a lot of empty space between fields. Most farms will take every scrap of arable land available.

Good work!
-blarg

Try these:





The border has not been added yet, nor the name and compass, but they are overall done...

I'd use the original #2 as an underwater city, with air-domes, connecting tubes, and nearby fields of kelp and sea cucumbers...