[Tinn]

Originally Posted by SoylentOrange

I guess I'm getting hung up on the "game" aspect of it. If you just wanted to read about big-busted cowgirls there are plenty of places for that. >.>;

I think there's a few possible solutions to this debate.

First up, there's room for some middle ground. As has been mentioned, there's a lot of variety when it comes to cowgirls. If each given cowgirl type has partial overlap with one or two other kinds, it should be possible for any given player to avoid at least a couple of varieties they don't like.
Of course, famous sayings being what they are, not all fetishists can be happy all of the time. There'd be at least some of us who'd have to accept some kind of girl we don't like the look of.

Or we could go with something based on of Shinigamis Past's idea, and have cowgirl type indicate the area a cowgirl is best in, without limiting them in other fields. Perhaps body type could just indicate starting abilities, and not affect the maximum values stats could reach - or perhaps they could affect the rate at which 'appropriate' stats could be gained, or how tired cowgirls get when performing taks they're not suited to. This would allow us to have our cake and eat it, too - One could achieve (for example) the accountant-with-built-in-waterbeds scenario without sacrificing the strategy of juggling different cowgirl types. On the other hand, it would be very possible for this kind of solution to make it too easy (or too hard) to build a farm using a user's preferred fetishes - and then we'd be back to the same problem we started with.

Another possibility would be for each cowgirl to combine her fixed bodytype-based advantages with one or two other advantages that're more to do with her talents as an individual than the features of her subspecies. Sure, a four-breasts-and-udder-type cowgirl will definitely be a good milker - but she might also be good with numbers, a whiz in the kitchen, or an excellent psychologist, depending on her personal interests. Similarly, any fully human girl could balance the accounts, but a given individual might just happen to have the genetics for high-flow milk production, the endurance for field work, or the professional knowledge of a midwife.
My idea with this option is to give players the option of building their farm around the different learned skillsets of their cowgirls, rather than around their breeds, or of combining the two as the player sees fit. Since the game is supposed to focus around juggling the strengths and weaknesses of a small number of girls, this change theoretically shouldn't have a substantial impact on gameplay, aside from changing which skills have redundancy.
Oh, and to work properly, this option would require that all or almost all advantages be available both from subspecies and to individuals. I don't reckon that's likely to become a problem, though.

Oh, and one last possibility might allow us to avoid the issue altogether: Background extras. The game could include nameless cowgirls whose stats are only important as a group. In play, you'd spend most of your time focused on improving and interacting with your 'family' of fleshed-out main characters, while a significant portion of the farm's activities could be handled by herds of girls only mentioned in passing and on the farm's account sheets. For example, you might have two generic 'human-types,' fifteen 'milkers' and three cowgirls of other varieties assigned to various jobs around the farm, producing milk, balancing accounts, organising shipments, tending the fields, and so on - which your 'main' girls would do too, but wouldn't have to. You could just assign your main girls to the tasks suited to your preferred body type, and have the things they're not good at handled by your faceless extras.
I'm not a fan of this option, personally - while having larger herds might be more realistic, it detracts from the idea of having you and your girls running the farm together.

Of the above options, I personally prefer the third. Or I guess we could combine some of them. What're your opinions?