Flaming arrows better than plain arrows?

[Darkvicer98]

It depends on the situation however fire arrows deal more damage but less accurate and scare the enemy and take longer to reload. If your in a situation where there's more enemy the normal arrows are better but if you want to hit the enemy hard use fire arrows.

[Bibbin]

And I doubt that flaming arrows would affect heavy calvary like the Parthian cataphracts. Too bad that the Parthians can't actully do Parthian shots.

[Quintus.JC]

..... Too bad that the Parthians can't actully do Parthian shots.

What do you mean by that?

[Fadly]

What do you mean by that?

that means riding forward while shooting backwards. it's one of the issues solve in the M2TW.

[LittleGrizzly]

I pretty much used the flaming arrows as standard, with any massed group of enemy troops it will rack the kills up in no time, i would only usually switch to plain arrows or hold fire when my infantry and cavalry engaged the enemys line....

[Ed TW]

I use fire if I'm outnumbered. It usually demoralizes the enemy and possibly start a rout. I also use them on more heavily armoured units like calvary.
That seems the only thing that can effect those units.
If I have superior numbers then I go for the accuracy and speed of reload.
I'll also use nonflaming arrows if I have a really big height advantage.
I want to do maximum damage before the enemy reaches me.

[Quintus.JC]

that means riding forward while shooting backwards. it's one of the issues solve in the M2TW.

I knew what Parthian shots meant, but didn't know what bibin meant by saying Parthians couldn't do Parthian shots. I'd never noticed that they couldn't shoot backwards in RTW.

[Rhyfelwyr]

From what I understand the only difference with fire arrows is that they take longer to reload, but cause morale damage to the enemy.

[Spartan198]

Flaming arrows do more damage, but it's oh-so-much more satisfying to listen to the screams of dying Romans as they're being showered with conventional arrows.