I'm not sure such a sheet would have much utility for all mappers. I've never had any need for such, but then I plan or sketch all my maps out on paper roughly before-hand, and simply use a bitmap scan of the hand-drawn version as the template in CC3+. If I need construction lines while mapping, as does happen sometimes, it's very easy to simply draw and then delete them once I'm finished with them. If I think I might need them again later, I save a separate copy of the FCW map file for that purpose before deleting them.

If you do find these are important, it's easy enough to create a Sheet on its own Layer (you can only freeze Layers, not Sheets, in CC3+) for use in the way you've described. If you're likely to be doing a lot of similar maps the same way, you can always save that as a personal set-up for the future having done it once. That way you can set the name and placement in the Sheets list as best-suits yourself.

You'd have to hide the Sheet before exporting, but you'd likely be doing that anyway to check the map without the construction lines getting in the way prior to that stage.

I doubt it would ever be possible to set up any single Sheet in CC that would somehow automatically "know" what colour you might expect different kinds of drawing entity to have. There are just so many variables involved - all of which you can adjust to whatever you require in CC3+ now, as Jim noted. If you might regularly require specific items of particular line thicknesses, styles and colours, it would be very easy to keep a sample of each on your "Construction Sheet" (or another Sheet set aside for such samples) that you could readily access using the "Draw like..." or "Extract properties" commands.

"A" looks more natural to me too, Sue.

The cross-hatched decoration (don't know what the proper term for it is, sorry!) seems undamaged despite the roof holes beneath it. As this seems to be of fairly flimsy outer surface material (compared with the depth of roof thatching), it seems unlikely it would have survived intact when the entire thatch below it has rotted away - even if it had just broken and raggedly partly fallen-in, say. I'd guess in some cases it might partly survive sort-of intact, but not always.

It does also look a little odd that none of the holes are where the greenery is; the extra weight and implication that that's where water's collecting, so mulching the thatch down into a growing medium plants can root into, might suggest that kind of area would be ripe for collapse as well.

For those here who may be unfamiliar, the original 1983 map from Assault is very typical of the board wargame maps of the 1970s-1980s in general. The features you dislike Mike were exactly what made the games playable back then, as well as reasonable simulations for the level of combat formations they were designed to show. The key features were that everything had to be clearly in an identifiable hex, or on its border, if it had any effect on the game whatsoever. So we were all very used back then to working with maps like this, and personally, I always preferred this idea to adding a hex grid to a real map, which never seemed workable to me as a board wargame mechanic (still doesn't - sorry!).

Even so, always like to see how your maps grow, Mike!

For @DoubleDouble and anyone else interested, this page on ancient port structures has some notes on the archaeological/historical use of constructed breakwaters and other artificial port structures, beginning around 2600 BCE (Egypt, Gulf of Suez). I'd recommend taking time to check through the other links and references if this subject catches your attention, though your life can end up taken over by such matters without due care...

They're lovely trees Sue, but I think we're hitting the same issue as with the Darklands overland style, in that they're just too nice!

Maybe think about something less symmetrical, and with some dead branches, or just branches without leaves, and maybe even some very battered trees too?