Fire arrows

[Bublo]

Sooo... I´m to this game and the Third Age mod , and I would like to know more about when and how to use fire arrows on archer units (like Silvan heavy archers). What are the benefits and drawbacks of using flaming munition. Any info would be appreciated

[Swad]

I don't use it that much if at all given the chance.

Fire arrows are no different than normal arrows with these exceptions:

Fire arrows are less accurate, and takes longer to reload.

They both tend to have the same range and damage as specified in the descr_proj.

I have never used fire arrows to much effect. I have never routed a unit other than some utterly beaten regiments with fire arrows before. I don't actually think the morale damage does that much of a job compared to the morale damage that normal arrows do by simply killing many more men by their accuracy and rate of fire. Most of the time, I find that routes happen due to charges to the rear, a unit being sufficiently depleted in combat and facing a terrifying enemy, or their general just died. The morale effect of fire arrows has always seen like an infinitesimally small addition, like the factor where some units "feel flanks are vulnerable", to the huge blocs that the rest of the battlefield conditions offer.

About the only use for them is against animals that can run amok, but then I'd rarely face those and rarely do they run amok even when I'm using fire against them.

I guess the main reason why other people use it is because due to their flashy effect, they seem to be doing a much bigger job in some players' mind than they are actually doing in the game. It's a bit like a placebo, but where thinking that it's doing a good job doesn't actually affect the effects.

[ThaDoews]

They are said to have a damagebonus when they hit, but yes, they are more inaccurate. I use them when the enemy are stowed together, then the inaccuracy is no problem But DONT use it if your melee units are in comobat with the enemy. DONT fire on those enemies, because your units can or will take heavy loss of the arrows!

They can also decrease the morale for enemy troops. But its useless in TATW because the morale is so high on most troops.

So, if the enemy arent stuffed together, dont use it...

[Keyser_Soze]

Against heavily armoured units, I find they're much more effective, though the accuracy is lower. Close-range against heavily armoured units is very effective, but no other real application for them unless morale is low.

[StealthFox]

Against heavily armoured units, I find they're much more effective, though the accuracy is lower. Close-range against heavily armoured units is very effective, but no other real application for them unless morale is low.

Yes, a lot of people do not know about this. Fire arrows work better against heavily armored units in addition to lowering enemy morale.

[Khales]

Prior to 3.1 i only used fire arrows to burn siegetowers. Since 3.1 siege weapons have been buffed so that i don´t use fire arrows at all.

Wait, except when i get attacked on a bridge. Then i give 1 or 2 archer units fire arrows just for the lulz...

[Bublo]

so thats how it is ..I did notice the accuracy reduction but I didn´t know about the slower reload time ..also I thought that there would be a major damage bonus but reading this it looks like the main bonus is morale damage
good to know , this change things thanks a lot!

[MasterBigAb]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ghlight=arrows

That could help you with a bit of information too, although it was written/tested with a 2.x version of Third Age.

[Garriath]

As far as I'm concerned, there are two kinds of battles: ones where you're trying to win by forcing an enemy route, and ones where you're trying to destroy the enemy army. In cavalry-heavy armies, like Rohan, most of the former turn into the latter. In most evil (nonhuman) factions, however, it's a real decision that you have to make. In the former, I've found fire arrows to be very effective. If your archers are high quality, and the enemy is quite close, a single volley of them can knock off so many enemies that they have to route. They can also make the deciding difference between an enemy unit routing or not.

On the other hand, if I'm just trying to kill the enemy (and thus actually have a vested interest in not allowing the enemy to route), I'll use normal arrows.

It really just depends on context.

[Bublo]

Yeah, I´ll keep that in mind. For now...I usually just go for destroying the enemy forces and if they route it´s mostly because of the casualties they´ve sustained by me trying to kill them , not by a pure intention to make then route

[Wizad]

How does it work? Are fire arrows AP? Or do they just have a damage bonus?

Could you copy+pasta the code and explain it?

[StealthFox]

I don't know what code gives the bonus, it's probably deep within the game engine mechanics. I have seen threads with good tests done that back it up though. I have also always noticed it in my own battles, but I've never actually "tested" like some people have done. It might just be the extra damage bonus is enough to counter the extra armor, thus resulting in more kills.

[Swad]

I don't know what code gives the bonus, it's probably deep within the game engine mechanics. I have seen threads with good tests done that back it up though. I have also always noticed it in my own battles, but I've never actually "tested" like some people have done.

These tests? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ghlight=arrows

Only when a heavily armored unit is running towards the archer unit firing fire arrows do they kill more, and even then the numbers are so abysmal against the armored unit that it's not that much over the course of the battle.

Shooting at stationary targets, normal arrows seem to dominate all circumstances.

[StealthFox]

These tests? http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ghlight=arrows

Only when a heavily armored unit is running towards the archer unit firing fire arrows do they kill more

In almost all instances though, the enemy is going to be moving towards you. In the few cases where the enemy may be stationary, bridge battles, the units are often clumped together so the accuracy disadvantage of fire arrows is practically negated.

and even then the numbers are so abysmal against the armored unit that it's not that much over the course of the battle.

I think the test results disagree.

Time      No-Fire  Fire
----------------------------
  60sec   37       41 (+11%) 
  90sec   77       67 (-13%)
~105sec  112       93 (-17%)
----------------------------

Infantry:

Time      No-Fire  Fire
----------------------------
  60sec    9       16 (+78%) 
  90sec   17       25 (+47%)
~105sec   27       36 (+33%)
----------------------------

Look at the percentages for the heavily armored Uruk Infantry. At 60 secs you're killing 78% more with fire arrows vs. non-fire arrows.

[Macilrille]

Fire Arrows.

Line up your infantry in a solid line in defensive mode, archers in front (normal arrows unless enemy armoured), and with a wing on the left flank to shoot from the non-shield side.

Put scare-units behind your line if you have any, especially if unarmoured, so the enemy units cannot shoot them, have at least one on each flank behind your own line.

General behind or on flank, cavalry on flank.

Enemy attacks, archers take their toll. If enemy hase archers, charge them with your general, inflict some losses on them and pull back behind your line. That way the enemy infantry will overtake the (now weakened archers) faster. Meanwhile circle with your cavalry. When enemy infantry gets close, pull archers back behind your line, still normal arrows, skirmish mode off.

Enemy infantry engages yours, if you are lucky your archers can still take their toll on Pikemen, Halbards, etc., or even better- the General. Meanwhile your cavalry routs his archers. And if possible the General, if not possible yet, wait.

Enemy infantry starts to waver a bit with your cavalry behind them and taking losses. Check which one wavers the most and/or feels defeat is certain.

Switch one or two units to fire arrows, as they fire the first volley on a wavering unit, charge the flanks (especially if the unit is on the flank- which is likely cause the scare-units are there) with your scare-units and cavalry. Another priority target is their general. Also, charge your general at a weak point in his line now, or his general

With the general dead, a cavalry charge from behind and scare units attacking their front and flanks, and your general (with high dread cause he is your battle-leader), the rout will start. If it does not turn into a mass rout immediately, use your cavalry to chase down the routers, while using infantry to outflank the remaining enemy. Arrows in the flank or back is also good. When routers are dead, if the enemy has not yet routed entirely, charge him again. Rinse and repeat til your land is clean of enemies.

[Dwarven Berserker]

Shooting at the left or right flank doesn't matter in M2TW though. Shields are 100% effective from the front and 50% at both sides I also don't see the logic behind it though, as it works as you say in RTW, and that's more realiastic. Why they changed it in M2TW, I have no clue

[Swad]

Yes that's what I mean, I was talking about the one with the heavy uruk-hai infantry. While the percentages look great, the actual kill number aren't actually that meaningful in combat, nor compared to the lightly armored ones.

If you look at the differences in how many are killed they're practically the same.

In the fire test with no armor, the difference is 4, 10, and 9.
With heavy armor, the difference is 7, 7, and 9.

That 78% looks shocking as it does because of the low amount of collective kills against something arrows don't do much damage against. In fact you can see the percentages petering out as 78% exponentially drops down to 33% at the end of the tests. It'd would probably go further down if allowed to, though fire arrows would still retain that tiny bit of advantage.

If you need to shoot at heavily armored targets, I guess you should probably use fire arrows, although to be honest it's probably not going to kill that many more than normal arrows, all in all the arrow fire should probably be concentrated elsewhere.

Regarding the tests though, I think we need to consider that not that many volleys actually leave the archer unit in the span of 105 seconds. As far as I know, there's only one test done of each without any sort of intermediary scales. The difference between the two is also scary, for the sole reason that it's pretty much all over the place. If fire arrows do have an advantage, there should be a pattern of the difference widening, not remaining a static ~8 throughout against its counterpart as the data seems to suggest.

I don't have this mod installed anymore, so I can't provide further data up for this.

[StealthFox]

Yes that's what I mean, I was talking about the one with the heavy uruk-hai infantry. While the percentages look great, the actual kill number aren't actually that meaningful in combat, nor compared to the lightly armored ones.

If you look at the differences in how many are killed they're practically the same.

In the fire test with no armor, the difference is 4, 10, and 9.
With heavy armor, the difference is 7, 7, and 9.

That 78% looks shocking as it does because of the low amount of collective kills against something arrows don't do much damage against.

A percentage is much more telling than numbers here. Imagine this multiplied by ten. By 60 seconds you will have killed 70 more Uruk infantry with fire arrows than without.

In fact you can see the percentages petering out as 78% exponentially drops down to 33% at the end of the tests. It'd would probably go further down if allowed to, though fire arrows would still retain that tiny bit of advantage.

Yes, this is because fire arrows release slower, so units with regular arrows get their volleys off quicker. But what happens if we looked at units after arrows are depleted rather than timed in seconds? Units with fire arrows will still be releasing volleys after the regular arrowed units are depleted. So, strictly and technically speaking time may be irrelevant as that percentage may get higher at the end instead of actually decreasing as this test shows.

If you need to shoot at heavily armored targets, I guess you should probably use fire arrows, although to be honest it's probably not going to kill that many more than normal arrows, all in all the arrow fire should probably be concentrated elsewhere.

78% more within 60 seconds.

[Mikail Mengsk]

+78% is illusory. the factual difference between killing 9 and killing 16 isn't noticeable in a big battle.

[Aldor]

The first volley is best set on fire arrows as for some reason the loading animation is then equal for normal/fire arrows. This also explains the large early advantage in the tests.
Mainly useful after your archers ran away as then the enemy should be nearby which offsets the accuracy penalty.

Fire arrows are mainly effective as a morale breaker.

You can also use fire to preserve ammo (better damage/ammo ratio when shooting up close/in large masses).