Quote Originally Posted by Sentinel
The answer seems to be No.
I ran a similar test as the one you quoted (half scale, due to time restraints) and came up with these numbers:

Grassy Plains map- Peasant Archer unit (5 missile attack)

61 Dismounted Norman Knights (7 armor + 8 Defense + 6 shield = 21)

Regular arrows:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
unit end result-
56-55-57-57-54

kills= 5-6-4-4-7

Fire arrows (night) :
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
unit end result
53-52-53-54-51

kills=8-9-8-7-10
---------------
Regular avg: 5.2
Fire avg: 8.4 + (penalty for double time between shots) 4.2
---------------
76 Italian Militia (0 Armor + 3 Defense + 6 Shield)
Regular arrows:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
Unit end result-
43-45-43-48-45

kills=33-31-33-28-31
Fire arrows (night) :
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
unit end result-
60-62-62-66-59

kills=16-14-14-10-17
---------------
Regular avg: 31.2
Fire avg: 14.2 + (penalty for double time between shots) 7.1
---------------

So, using this info, regular arrows kill enemies faster, but fire arrows are more economical vs heavily armored units. Then again, how often does a person resort to using a low end archer unit against a high end infantry unit? It does suggest that fire arrows kill armored units better when working with low end vs high end, but this is under a controlled test as apposed to a live one, so actual results may vary.

Hell, someone kill me now, i think i'm just making it even harder for me to understand it... Actually, screw it, I typed it up and wrote all that down, i'm posting it anyways even if I think my own work is silly