Night fights

[Cpt_oo7]

Can some people give me any proper advantages for useing night fights (attacking in the dark, fighting at night, etc.) instead of regular (day) fights? I don't see much of a difference. I could only guess it brings these advantages:

Lowers morale?
Easier to hide?

... And that's about it.

[TheLastPrivate]

a) Reinforcements that are led by night-fight incapable generals or captains are out of the battle. thats HUGE.

b) missile accuracy is drastically lowered. Again, pretty big difference.

c) From what I know there is no real difference in morale/hiding.

d) Night battle general gets +1 command while the other, if incapable, does not get any.

[phonicsmonkey]

What he said...

And they look really cool too.

[Cpt_oo7]

Ok thank's! that's all I really needed to know

[_Tristan_]

a) Reinforcements that are led by night-fight incapable generals or captains are out of the battle. thats HUGE.

b) missile accuracy is drastically lowered. Again, pretty big difference.

c) From what I know there is no real difference in morale/hiding.

d) Night battle general gets +1 command while the other, if incapable, does not get any.

a) True...

b) Not so true... Fire arrows have no accuracy penalty I know of (so long Xbows...)

c) You can sometimes surprise the enemy on the battle map under cover of night, slipping some troops behind unseen...
About morale, I can only think of the morale effect of fire arrows...

d) True also... ( and more the more night fights he gets involved in...)

A night-fighter general is a major asset if facing an enemy fielding multiple stacks (particularly if captain-led... think assassin...)

[FactionHeir]

There was a thread a year or so ago where I summarized all benefits and contras regarding night battles. Do a search on that.

As for missile accuracy, there is absolutely no penalty to missile accuracy at night.
Tristan: Fire arrows have a slightly lower accuracy than non fire arrows.

[Darius]

Also some generals can get a negative penalty while fighting at night, Noctophobia or something like that I think. That gives THEM a penalty and YOU a bonus in command.

[Sentinel]

Night fighting can give your army the advantage if you turn off the special, flaming arrow option (yes, I know it looks nice). The AI always uses Flaming Arrow as default

For archer heavy armies the battles usually start with missile exchange. Normal arrows are more accurate, therefore do more damage and kill faster.

In a one to one shoot out between archers using normal and flaming arrows, The unit using flaming arrows always routes first. The damage done by the flaming arrows moral penalty is less than the moral penalty from the extra kills of the normal arrows.

[econ21]

In a one to one shoot out between archers using normal and flaming arrows, The unit using flaming arrows always routes first. The damage done by the flaming arrows moral penalty is less than the moral penalty from the extra kills of the normal arrows.

I recall Factionheir saying that a unit seldom routed from missile fire alone, so this may kick in here. ie there may be a lower bound on how far morale can fall during a melee that stops the fire arrows being better at lowering morale in such a situation.

But I agree in a missile duel, regular arrows would be better. You want to kill the enemy missiles faster than they kill you.

However, I find that flaming arrows are useful for softening up the morale of the enemy prior to engaging in melee. Whether they are more effective at that, than regular arrows firing twice as fast, I don't know but I would hope so. I always thought the trade off between regular arrows and fire arrows was double speed vs greater morale effect.

I also get the impression that fire arrows negate armour and so are good against knights. But that may be false.

[jsadighi]

I recall Factionheir saying that a unit seldom routed from missile fire alone, so this may kick in here. ie there may be a lower bound on how far morale can fall during a melee that stops the fire arrows being better at lowering morale in such a situation.

But I agree in a missile duel, regular arrows would be better. You want to kill the enemy missiles faster than they kill you.

However, I find that flaming arrows are useful for softening up the morale of the enemy prior to engaging in melee. Whether they are more effective at that, than regular arrows firing twice as fast, I don't know but I would hope so. I always thought the trade off between regular arrows and fire arrows was double speed vs greater morale effect.

I also get the impression that fire arrows negate armour and so are good against knights. But that may be false.

The morale advantage is nice, but I subscribe to the belief that the less enemies you have to kill the greater your chances are of surviving the battle. Sure, the affect on morale from flaming arrows gives a greater chance of routing the enemy, but that is negated if you're forced to face army that outnumbers you. Strength in numbers will ensure that the enemy will continue to press on, in which case you'll wish you used the arrows to kill more men rather than to see if flames will encourage the enemy to turn and run.

I've used flaming arrows several times. The tactic has managed to panic some units, but that's about it. The only real success I've had with flaming arrows was in a siege defense. The Scots, who outnumbered my defense forces 3 to 1, lay siege to York. I used flaming arrows to take out the enemy King much to the chagrin of the Scots (flames do indeed negate armour). Once the enemy saw their king turn to ash, they ran away at which point I used whatever cavalry I had left to hunt down the routing soldiers. When the Scots decided to rally and finish the battle they started the size of their army was equal to mine. But with the death of their King, and no other generals to give them encouragements, they never stood a chance against my sallying forces.

[crpcarrot]

i think vlue of flaming arrows comes not just by iyself but the morale pnalty that nearby routing units cause. if by concentrating fire on one unit that is quite close to other units from its own side then flaming arrows probably have much better effect. as soon as the first unit routs exploit the immedite morale penalty that the units close to it receive by quicky pepering them with flaming arrows. the additional penalty will probably have have more affect than flaming arrows by itself.

under normal circumstances flaming arrows seem to have very minimum affect. the penalty caused by number of kills from normal arrows and the quicker fire rate (morale penalty for being under fire) probably have the same affect as using flamin arrows.

imo flaming arrows are only usefull to tip the scales once when troops are weavering otherwise just stick to normal arrows.

of course i have no concrete evidence that all these machanics actually exist in the game though it appears to work.

[Old Geezer]

If my archers don't have armor piercing capability then I use flaming arrows against armored targets but against unarmored or very light troops I use regular usually. Always use flaming against elephants. What about cammels? Do they hate fire too or are they just like horses?

[FactionHeir]

Fire arrows only increase the chance of elephants going berzerk because of the morale hit. You can get them to run amok with normal arrows too really, just need to kill a few more. Also, it seems that elephants will usually rout first before going berzerk unless hit by a flaming particle (which can lead to immediate berzerk if you kill an elephant and their morale drops to rout), which is interesting.

On all other troops, fire arrows just decrease morale by a point as usual. They don't do any extra damage by the way.

[rezizter]

The other main advantage that i don’t think has been mentioned is this. When you are attacking/or attacked by multiple stacks, if any stack is lead by a captain, then they cannot enter the fight if you select night fight. I have used this trick twice as England against France to take settlements despite the presence of multiple enemy stacks nearby. You end up fighting only one stack instead of multiple, and win (ideally!), thereby giving you another settlement for little loss. You can then do with the settlement as you please.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Just to clarify:

Is it true flaming arrows kill armoured troops faster?

[WhiskeyGhost]

not noticeably, since it fires so much slower. If your at close range, then i'd say yes, if your shooting into the back of the enemy unit, i'd say no. Against some of the better armored units (Dismounted Norman Knights maybe?), using peasant archers, i'd say Fire arrows are your only real chance of dealing kills unless they turn their backs on you.

edit: by close range, i mean half or less of the units max firing range

[Sentinel]

originally posted by askthepizzaguy
Just to clarify:

Is it true flaming arrows kill armoured troops faster?

The answer seems to be No.

Quote (from another tread).

Custom battle set to VH, grassy plain, AI controlling a unit of Gaelic Archers (missile attack 7). Recorded below are the number of kills after archers fired 10 arrows.
The test was done first a Night to force the AI to use flaming arrow.
Then it was repeated at Midday for normal arrows

Noble Pikemen - Unit size 76, Armour 7(upgraded), Defence 7, Shield 0

Night attack 15, 12, 25, 22, 20, 19, 21, 17, 23, 14 = Avg 18.8
Midday attack 33, 25, 26, 31, 26, 25, 27, 32, 32, 24 = Avg 28.1


Highland Pikemen - Unit size 76, Armour 0, Defence 6, Shield 0.

Night attack 39, 37, 45, 53, 43, 35, 43, 39, 50, 47 = Avg 43.1
Midday attack 44, 57. 62, 67, 59, 55, 61, 64, 54, 52 = Avg 57.5

The number of kills per 10 arrows is higher for normal arrows, than for flaming arrows, on targets with or without armour.
In addition the rate of fire for normal arrows is about twice that of flaming arrows.

[WhiskeyGhost]

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

[Old Geezer]

Don't Whiskey's results indicate that it is better to use fire arrows against high armored targets and regular against low armored units? The range fired at also makes a difference with accuracy and the depth of formation with crossbows at least. Cross bow arrows will often go through a first line of defenders and kill men in the unit behind. At close range I wonder if longbows would do such? I've never bothered to look, because usually if my longbows are at close range I'm getting ready to panic.