Flaming Arrows, should they be removed?

I'm considering modding these out of the unit capabilities for a couple of reasons. I want to approach this from two different directions:

1. Do the flaming arrows match their historical purpose/usefullness? Or are they used in a fantasy style?

2. Do they have so many bugs that they should be removed? (Not necessarily permanently, but until a patch fixes them.)

What I am seeing is the AI using flaming arrows against my infantry and cav at times. (I'm not sure what prompts it to do so since it doesn't do this all the time.) I highly doubt that this would have been a good use of archers, but the AI does so anyway. In the game the flaming arrows seem to have some morale penalties and they kill well. When I've tried to use flaming arrows against legitimate targets like battering rams I have been unsuccessful. (And why doesn't siege equipment show an actual percent damaged? It has a display for it, but when I've seen my tower or ram destroyed they went right from "0" to destroyed.)

Flaming arrows should work against elephants to make them run amok, and that is a legitimate use. However, archery was not a prominent player in warfare of the time and was rarely decisive. Pointy sticks and javelins were the main anti-elephant weapons. Not that javelins do any damage to elephants in RTW (or arrows for that matter, except for the flaming variety.)

Even with some of the flaming arrow graphics disabled, I'm still seeing permanent slowdowns from them at times. Right now, the combination of non-historical abuse of flaming arrows coupled with the crippling slowdowns is pushing me toward removing them from the game. The deciding factor is: would the game be better without flaming arrows? At the moment, for me the answer seems to be "yes" but I would like to hear more about flaming arrows of this period before disabling them.

I think the AI only uses flaming arrows when the defense rating of your troops makes regular arrows relatively ineffective. Just a guess though, I haven't really seen the AI use them often enough to be sure.

I agree with you, I hate flaming arrows and I try to stay away from them all together. They slow down my system and they really have no purpose. They should have Javalin throwers more powerful, so they can counter Elephants easier, because as of now I send about two units of archers after the Elephants, and a wall of men, and thats a waste compared to the other enemys that need to be fought. I think they should be taken out, so add 1 more vote to your tally. :bow:

It slows down my game too but I really like to have some archers firing flaming arrows at the batterings rams when I'm besieged, that's the only time I use them, otherwise it's inaccurate...and therefore useless.

Well, shoot. I thought flaming arrow ability would be listed in there like "phalanx" or "wedge." However, it looks like non-formation special abilities like flaming arrows and war cry are not in the units file. I did a search for "war_cry" as text and foung it in the .exe but not anywhere modifiable. So it appears that it is hard coded. DRATS!!!!

Edit: Found the same thing for flaming arrows, "fiery" is found inside the .EXE. Projectile stats file doesn't help either.

Um. What about if I want to burn those rams before they reach my walls?

It's the only time I use them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colovion

Um. What about if I want to burn those rams before they reach my walls?

It's the only time I use them...

---

I agree, but we don't have any way to limit the AI targets to historically legitimate ones (wooden structures, wooden machines, and animals that spook.) At this point it looks like I can't eliminate the fire arrows at all, so this could be a moot point.

Hmmmm flaming arrows to prematurely ignite the incinderary pigs. It's eye candy that they decided to throw in there. Luckily I never get lag from flaming arrows. What they need to do is make flaming arrows turned off in the graphics option since it is a major graphics problem to deal with.

Well I would be lost without flaming arrows, so I'm not in favour of taking them out.

When defending a city I rely upon flaming arrows to destroy the enemies battering rams, seige towers and saps. I just love it when those seige towers catch fire full of enemy infantry and the screams as they collapse taking a whole chort with them.

The only time I've seen the enemy use flaming arrows is against my seige engines and on the battlefield against my artillery.

It's not just the graphical side of things that I see problems. Quite often the AI archers fire flaming arrows against my troops, not just siege engines or elephants. Against Scythia and their archer armies it was unplayable. If you turn off flaming arrow graphics altogether, then you don't know when they are being used--that's not a good solution. Better would be an option to disable flaming arrows period, or at least limit them to specific uses. They have a different effect on morale than normal arrows apparently (although we are left guessing as to what.)

Didz example of using them in a siege vs. the rams and such is a good one of legitimate use. I rarely use enough archers for this to work, because I limit myself to a historically representative number for the factions I am using, and I am very rarely defending stone walls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Didz example of using them in a siege vs. the rams and such is a good one of legitimate use. I rarely use enough archers for this to work, because I limit myself to a historically representative number for the factions I am using, and I am very rarely defending stone walls.

---

I tend to garrison my cities with almost equal numbers of archers and town watch so that I have enough archers to defend my walls. I can't see the point in trying to defend a city unless you can prevent the enemy gaining access. Usually three archer cohorts firing flaming arrows is enough to bring down a seige tower before it can unload a second cohort of enemy infantry.

As for the battlefield use of flaming arrows. I have seen the AI use flaming arrows on the battlefield but very rarely against anything other than my onagers. Perhaps this problem depends on the race one is playing, I have only played Roman (Brutii) and have only fought Roman, Egyptian and Greek armies.

Have you noticed any particular patterns to when this abuse of flaming arrows occurs?

On a side note, exactly what bonuses do fire arrows confer? A bonus to attack, a penalty to target's morale? Or are there other factors?

My experiences are, that one flaming arrow that actually hits kills, but they seem to fire much more slowly, and not as accurate. But if I use regular arrow's, they seem to fire much faster and more accurate, so I consequently always kill much more without flaming arrow's, so I dont use them anymore.

I did use them, thought it was funny to watch em burn, but it helps me more to pund them with the regulars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiOwA

On a side note, exactly what bonuses do fire arrows confer? A bonus to attack, a penalty to target's morale? Or are there other factors?

---

I don't think we know (at least I don't.) As best I can tell the flame effects are hard coded.

Watch "Gladiator" ~;) and you'll understand why romans used flaming arrows: both for more casualties and for more effect on psychological fear ~D Best of luck in burning those bastards barbarians!

Uggggghhhhh...why do people quote Gladiator scenes as if it were an historical reference work? It was fiction, a very entertaining movie. It gets somethings right, somethings wrong, exaggerates others. Same for Braveheart. If you want entertainment, watch a movie. If you want history, read.

How many beautiful gasoline fireballs do you see in "war/action" movies where the source is supposedly a grenade, rocket, or high explosive weapon? It's in the movie, but it sure isn't an accurate depiction.

So help me...the next person that quotes Gladiator as if it were a historical resource will be tried for crimes against history :hanged: ~D

Beyond siege work I'm not a fan of flamming arrows at all. In fact, I'd like to see units firing them ignite themselves once in a while as I'm convinced this is what would happen with so many men handling such flammable material around so much fire during the mayhem of a fight. Absolutely impractical on a battlefield. And for what, just to burn a guy you already hit with an arrow? Given what had to be lousy ballistic properties compared to a normal shot, no one would bother with the expense, logistics and headaches of lighting them up.

Wooden targets should be the only valid objects for flaming arrows.

The classic exploding cannon ball trick used by all movie makers since the dawn of time. Then we wonder why politicians treat us like idiots.

Well some movies get cannon balls right, I do believe that some cannon balls were filled with powder and had a fuse most were just solid. On the main topic: I believe that flaming arrows confer a large morale penalty, more than the usual arrow penalty, because I have had a group of hardened troops walk through a stram of arrows or stand their ground and die to a man under archer fire, but I have had the same troops in a different battle with similar conditions break and run on the second flaming arrow volley. I have had 4 depleted phalanx pike units form a box in defense and hold against a large roman force with 2-3 Archer Auxilia while being assaulted by infantry and lacking a general and they did have the ability to route.

I agree that flaming arrows cause lag but with my system, 2.8 Intel HT with a 9600 PRO and 1024 of Kingston Value RAM I only get lag for a few seconds.

I like flaming arrows. Don't know if they lower the enemy's morale but they certainly lift mine. ~D
They are great at sieges specially when I'm defending. I don't wait for the enemy to build their siege engines, I attack and attack until those loons outside my walls realize the price is too high to pay for a town that belches fire every ten seconds.
Arcehrs are slower shooting fire arrows than regular ones but they are as acurate, or inacurate, as firing regulars.
Fireballs do less damage to walls and gates than cold stones but that's how it's suposed to be. And I like to see pretty towns in pretty fires also :fireman:

I made a mod to reduce the trail and it was ok but pretty crap..

However, there is new mod on twcenter in their downloads section by a chap called Darth Vader. I had a look at the files and he has made significant additions to the entries involving fire arrows, including some complicated stuff that seemingly has come out of nowhere (not seen anyone else attempt it).

It is part a general mod, but if you want to try his fix for fire arrows just copy across the files

descr_arrow_trail_effects_new.txt

descr_particle.txt

descr_projectile_new.txt

Seems to do the trick for me...

Please try, frame rates seem uneffected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Well some movies get cannon balls right, I do believe that some cannon balls were filled with powder and had a fuse most were just solid.

---

I've yet to see one. (unless one counts the ludicrous silver painted volley ball incident in Patriot, which had the whole cinema in fits of laughter)

BTW: Cannon balls filled with powder were called 'shells' or spherical case shot they were rarely used and only then by howitzers and mortars.

Smoothbore's like the 12# Napoleon were the workhorses of the first two years or so of the US Civil War (39% of the guns at Gettysburg were 12# Napoleons--in both armies.) They fired quite a bit of spherical case shot and spherical shell. Fusing was the weak link, although tight quality control of Federal fuse manufacture contributed considerably to their effectiveness in Union hands. Solid shot was more common, but it really depends on the situation. They carried a mix of shell, shot, case and canister in their caissons.

As to the question of when the AI uses flaming arrows. I'm not sure. I have noticed it more in situations where my commander or army were of lower morale (when sallying with a captain, etc.) Personally, if I were on the receiving end of a barrage, I would rather have some fool shooting flaming arrows at me rather than regular arrows. It would really kill their penetrating power giving me a bit more safety in my helmet and any armour behind a shield. I suspect that flaming arrow ability would be something that would have to be planned for ahead of battle--sieges and the like, and in special cases of elephants. I doubt that it is something an archery unit could perform without a bit of pre-battle preparation (distributing the flammables, etc.)

I think there was an old movie called Gettysburg that had accurate cannon rounds, but I may be wrong because I saw it a while ago. I just remember one shot ripping the lower end of a guy's leg of and another just tearing through a guy's head, neither exploded. Anyone know if that is the movie I am thinking of and its accuracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

I think there was an old movie called Gettysburg that had accurate cannon rounds, but I may be wrong because I saw it a while ago. I just remember one shot ripping the lower end of a guy's leg of and another just tearing through a guy's head, neither exploded. Anyone know if that is the movie I am thinking of and its accuracy?

---

I've got the Warner Bros. Civil War DVD Boxed Set consisting of 'Gods & Generals' & 'Gettysburg' and there certainly plenty of exploding cannonballs in those films.

I think the problem is that movies audiences expect explosions and that simulating the passage of a round shot effectively is very difficult to do.

However, Master and Commander managed to do a pretty good job in a naval setting.

I find the problem with those kind of movies is not so much the exploding shots, at least they could have been used, but that they hardly ever, if at all use canister, which was the principal anti-personel weapon at short ranges.
One 3 pounder with canister could fire faster than an infantryman and had the total effect of a whole company, in terms of musketry to canister. Imagine a 6 pounder or 12 pounder... But I don't recall seeing that in any movie.

But I love "Gladiator" movie and all those flaming arrows ~D Burn those barbarians! Kill 'em all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grand Duke Vytautas of the Lithuanians

But I love "Gladiator" movie and all those flaming arrows.

---

So, do I.

The only issue I have with them is that they pretend to be historically accurate and some of the more gullible amongst us fall for it. Hence, you get people quoting 'Gladiator' as historical evidence.

My personal view is that movie makers need to come clean right at the start and either produce a film which is historically accurate or drop the whole pretence and just produce something entertaining.

I mean if you can't be bothered or don't consider bouncing cannon balls exciting enough then replace them with Goblin Doom Divers or something, instead of producing a film which claims to be the true story of Arthur or Napoleon and turns out to be a heap of shite with the US Marines capturing Hougoumont, or a blue painted Guinevere in a bikini wandering around in the Scottish Highlands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I find the problem with those kind of movies is not so much the exploding shots, at least they could have been used, but that they hardly ever, if at all use canister, which was the principal anti-personel weapon at short ranges.
One 3 pounder with canister could fire faster than an infantryman and had the total effect of a whole company, in terms of musketry to canister. Imagine a 6 pounder or 12 pounder... But I don't recall seeing that in any movie.

---

Much of this has to do with the general perception of *modern* artillery/tanks and how their rounds behave. This expectation is then applied to historical cannon. Probably 99% of the audiencence is unaware that the high explosive rounds are for anti-personnel, not for destroying armoured targets.

Hence, you get exploding rounds in earlier cannon movies, and little else. You don't see solid shot used for bowling down men. You don't see bolts and solid shot used to hammer through walls or to hit long range targets. You don't see cannister used to mow down a swath at short range like an enormous shot gun.

To be fair, illustrating solid shot and canister so that the audience gets it would be a bit of a challenge. You would have to educate them a bit first, costing maybe a minute or more of screen time as some characters discuss/demonstrate it somewhere in the movie. You can't really depict the devastation of canister easily without being extremely graphic. Exploding shot is easy: the audience sees a gun fire, the shell goes boom, people fall down/disappear. Canister misses the boom...but the people fall down...audience goes ~:confused:

The History Channel has done some interesting demonstrations of canister using Civil War era replicas against cut out targets at appropriate range.

Quote:

---

Flaming Arrows, should they be removed?

---

Short answer is Yes. All they do is slow down your system. They were added just to make the game look pretty, even though they do crap all to soldiers. Most fire arrows just bounce off enemy men, and whenever they don't bounce off, it's just like a normal arrow hitting someone, only the person sets on fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

Short answer is Yes. All they do is slow down your system. They were added just to make the game look pretty, even though they do crap all to soldiers. Most fire arrows just bounce off enemy men, and whenever they don't bounce off, it's just like a normal arrow hitting someone, only the person sets on fire.

---

Thats fine as long as ordinary arrows can set fire to seige towers and rams.

I find that fire arrows don't actually set fire to siege weapons such as towers. Usually the flaming arrows shot from the wall towers will set fire to things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

I find that fire arrows don't actually set fire to siege weapons such as towers. Usually the flaming arrows shot from the wall towers will set fire to things.

---

They do in my game. its a standard tactic of mine. Whether they should is a question of historical reference and I don't actually know enough about the period to comment.