Quote Originally Posted by Gandwarf View Post
it shows that you drew a large stone texture and then put the buildings on top. I rather prefer placing the individual streets and then houses, it somehow makes for a more realistic map I think. You might want to experiment with that when doing future maps.
While I agree with Gandwarf in this particular case, I find that one can get more realistic results if one puts down the buildings first and then makes the roads. That's also how things happened in reality. Buildings grew around roads that were dirt at first, and as the settlement grew, cobblestone was laid on the major thoroughfares.

Gandwarf's point about the single road also is right on the mark. A settlement this size would have had at least two or three roads in and out. In addition, there would have been several smaller "doors" in the wall where farmers could go in and out to their fields.

Finally, the opening in the wall in the southeast is troublesome. Your river does not have a particularly wide scale on the map. A well-walled city like this would not have been left so open to arrows, flaming projectiles and the like. More likely, the wall would have bridged the river, and the waterway itself would have been cut off by a grate, or, if the river is navigable, it would have been protected by a portcullis type gate that could be raised to let river traffic pass in and out of town.

On the very positive side, this is the first CC3 raster map I've seen that managed not to have at least a bit of that generic CC3 look to it. Excellent!