Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Conaill" data-source="post: 1463486" data-attributes="member: 1264">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.</blockquote>

Verification