Flaming arrows better than plain 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.