Fire arrows...useful?

[godfather_77]

I am wondering if fire arrows are actually useful? I read that they are less accurate than regular arrows...which don"t seem to be that accurate either. Any suggestions for fire arrow use?

[Stath's]

They reduce enemy morale, don't they?

[Mr Kriegtooth]

For some reason, I think they are more powerful

If they arent, I still use them. Look cool as hell

[Faramir D'Andunie]

From my experience the slight more morale damage they do isn't that much, but they seem to be more lethal against armored targets. But they are less accurate... and have a slower rate of fire.

Yea... can't remember using them anywhere except the odd river crossing/bridge battles.

[Torvus]

They do seem to be more effective than the normal kind. Plus you can actually see where they are landing, almost like modern tracer fire.

[Arystan]

Can use them at siege. When opponent siege your settlement with moving towers, just strike to them with fire, and they'll burned & crushed until they'll come to the walls.

[Paragon]

Can use them at siege. When opponent siege your settlement with moving towers, just strike to them with fire, and they'll burned & crushed until they'll come to the walls.

This.

I mostly only use them after killing the enemy general to lower the morale of the hardire enemy units left, too.

[sodmkavc]

They are very useful against Lithuanian Woodsmen. The arrow doesn't kill the guy, but the fire puts him in flames

[Strengelicher]

They are very useful against Lithuanian Woodsmen. The arrow doesn't kill the guy, but the fire puts him in flames

That would be because the Lithuanian Woodsmen are made of Woods.

[miniwally]

Do people find that using fire arrows on enemy siege weapons e.g. siege towers often works? It rarely seems to for me.

[Paragon]

You've gotta try it everytime if you can. I once stopped like 1200 men for sieging less than 150 that way.

[miniwally]

You've gotta try it everytime if you can. I once stopped like 1200 men for sieging less than 150 that way.

I prefer focusing on dwindling numbers first then try and choke them when they break through the gate, seems to work normally.

[Paragon]

I prefer focusing on dwindling numbers first then try and choke them when they break through the gate, seems to work normally.

Well, but if you aren't gonna win anyway you lose nothing to try.

[miniwally]

Well, but if you aren't gonna win anyway you lose nothing to try.

But by using my tactic I've dwindled there numbers to an amount where even if they do win I've reduced there numbers enough to take back the settlement fairly easy enough

[tudor93]

it rarely works to set the siege towers on fire, so it's not worth it; like miniwally, I preffer focusing on shrinking their numbers first
it's worth it only when you are heavily outnumbered and you can't afford to send some troops to hold the point where the tower would be set

[Deafening Milk]

Fire arrows benefits - more damage, cause small moral drop to enemy units and small chance of setting siege equipment on fire
Disadvantages - much slower rate of fire and less accurate.

If i forgot one to put in im sorry.

Basically if the battle is going to end fast, you benefit more from not using fire arrows as you get more shots off though only target low to med armored troops.
If its a long battle use flaming arrows as if you use the majority of your arrows with flames you will cause more damage than using all your ammo with no flames. However this allows you to deal some damage to heavily armored troops but no where near as effectively as javalins.

[recentiy03]

Fire arrows are pretty good for taking out heavily armored enemies, although I've found them to be most effective when used in sieges.

There is a specific formation that surrounds enemies as they enter your gate and using fire arrows greatly increases the chances of their routing.

Basically, you need to have a setup like this:

> [ ___ ] <

Key:

>< are archers shooting fire arrows
[ ____ ] are spear units positioned in that direction.

And this all takes place directly behind your gate.

The idea is to surround the enemy in order to lower their morale, eventually causing them to rout between the boiling oil, flaming arrows and 3+ units of spear...the combination of surrounding them from all sides and shooting flaming arrows from the flank generally causes them to turn and run unless they are being led by a powerful general.

It's possible to defend a node with 3 units of spear and just 2 units of archers using this plan, but that means you won't have a unit to put on the walls to activate the boiling oil so you might want another infantry unit.


In terms of a field battle, like I said, I use flaming arrows to take out heavily armored units, although they're most effective in siege defenses.

[Ichon]

Fire arrows morale damage is pretty good. If enemy is already wavering fire arrows usually breaks them instantly. So if you control the aim of your archers with fire arrows and focus fire on one flank with a rear charge by your cavalry all but the best units rout very quickly even on VH. If the enemy general is still alive the units will usually rally but if you have a much smaller army it allows you to fight only 1/2 or 2/3 of enemy at a time. I think fire arrows damage to morale is way too strong as well as how in the hell does it help vs armored units more? Doesn't make any sense. Fire arrows were used almost exclusively to setstuff on fire by raiders or during sieges or ship combat. In battles there is less than a handful of reports over centuries of warfare of being used in a field battle and half of those it was simply a signalling device and not aimed at any enemy.

[Paragon]

Fire arrows morale damage is pretty good. If enemy is already wavering fire arrows usually breaks them instantly. So if you control the aim of your archers with fire arrows and focus fire on one flank with a rear charge by your cavalry all but the best units rout very quickly even on VH. If the enemy general is still alive the units will usually rally but if you have a much smaller army it allows you to fight only 1/2 or 2/3 of enemy at a time. I think fire arrows damage to morale is way too strong as well as how in the hell does it help vs armored units more? Doesn't make any sense. Fire arrows were used almost exclusively to setstuff on fire by raiders or during sieges or ship combat. In battles there is less than a handful of reports over centuries of warfare of being used in a field battle and half of those it was simply a signalling device and not aimed at any enemy.

If an arrow on fire hits you were a regular arrow would make a wound, small or lethal, you find yourself in the quite unfortunate position of fire spreading under your metallic, heat conducting armor.

That's sucks.

[Ichon]

If an arrow on fire hits you were a regular arrow would make a wound, small or lethal, you find yourself in the quite unfortunate position of fire spreading under your metallic, heat conducting armor.

That's sucks.

What? These aren't naffatuns or camphor/naptha grenades. Fire arrow is almost always cloth dipped in tar/pitch/oil and wrapped behind arrowhead(which there are some special heavier arrowheads with fluting designed to keep the flame alight). These were most often used in ship combat and against towns in raids and sieges and had low range and accuracy while required to be shot from bow with weaker draw as too fast of flight would extinguish the flame. The weaker shot and bulky shaft made fire arrows very slow and unable to penetrate armor or much of anything. They were designed to hit wood hard enough to stick and the splatter some of the burning fragments from the cloth onto the wood and set it alight.

The ballista with flaming bolts is probably the most accurate use in the game. Trebuchets and mangonels did shoot flaming barrels of pitch but never in field battles, always in sieges. Fatimids, Mongols, Abbasids, ERE, and Almohads all had some types of burning weapons but not fire arrows. Usually more like a rocket or Chinese arrow (bolt with special head of iron or clay filled with naptha/tar).