Bows

[nikgaukroger]

Don, have no fear your comments are part of the assessment of this proposed change. Thanks

[viking123]

Don,
What I do not understand is that you are dropping all FOG R because you are unhappy with the changes proposed to Bows but there are a lot of competitions where bows do not feature. I can understand you not entering competitions where Bows are the main infantry weapon but not all of them.

Bob

[Vespasian28]

Similarly I am not happy with a lot of the changes but I will ignore most of them and carry on playing FOGR because it is intrinsically a very good set. It helps that our club has the same view and I am essentially not a competition player.
Carry on regardless I say.

[nikgaukroger]

Fair enough, play what you enjoy IMO. Also your contributions have been valuable - always good to have both sides, so thank you

[jonphilp]

If the change stands I am afraid my Ming will take the field under v1 or another set of rules as this changes what I perceive to be how the eastern battles went during this period.

[nikgaukroger]

As we don't yet have, IMO, a definitive answer either way on this one I'd find any additional (i.e. new, not posted before) evidence very useful.

In fact I'd say at present we have had, for both sides, mostly opinion and little evidence - of course, there may not be a lot so I may be looking for info that doesn't actually exist .

[benjones1211]

As it is the most contentious change and likely to have the biggest impact within its own period then the best idea would be not to make the change unless there is vast compelling reason for it.

The only comment is that the changes to Cav will mean that most armies with bows will be slightly better anyway, as their cavalry will be slightly cheaper, so maybe rather than changing the range for Bow is to make foot bow 1 pt more, thus reducing the number of bowmen a bit.

[nikgaukroger]

Thanks.

Any more from anyone?

[nikgaukroger]

DEADLINE IS TODAY

[nikgaukroger]

As you may have already seen this proposal will be in the update.

Because it has been, perhaps, the most contentious proposal I would just like to note that it is one that Richard specifically highlighted as a definite inclusion (although as commented elsewhere he has approved all the proposals). I feel that feedback is important.