Flaming arrows better than plain arrows?

[Bibbin]

i was just wondering, in RTW, are the flaming arrows shot by archers better than plain arrows? I think flaming arrows are less accurate but are better against calvary, what do you suggest?

[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.

[TruePraetorian]

I think regular are better then flaming just because they fire quicker and hit more accuratley, AFAIK. Besides, who cares about dying Romans scream when the Greeks are the ones who lose the battle .

[grwn]

I always use fire when outnumbered, they seem to break attacking units a lot easier then conventional arrows. And the wider hit area means you CAN hit more units in big battles, which mean even quicker routing of other units .

grwn

[Spartan198]

I think regular are better then flaming just because they fire quicker and hit more accuratley, AFAIK. Besides, who cares about dying Romans scream when the Greeks are the ones who lose the battle .

How can the Greeks lose when all the Romans are lying dead in the field?

[King Jan III Sobieski]

I like flame arrows, myself. They're pretty...

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I prefer the faster reloading time and accuracy of regular arrows. I'm also uncertain as to whether fire arrows do actually cause more damage to standard units - it could just be the fact that the damage is more visible giving that illusion.

Against elephants and other amok running units, fire arrows are the way to go to force them to go wild. They are also useful if a quick route is needed. As I've said though, for pure damage, plain arrows are, in my opinion better.

[glyphz]

indeed, i find regular arrows more useful, except in bridge defense battles or street bottlenecks, in these situations breaking their morale fast before casualties accumulate is a higer priority, especially if you're outnumbered or have less quality troops.
another exception is when i have a ton of archers (esp. archer heavy factions). with the sky full of arrows, i can afford a few foot archers (if there's any) to start using fire.