Fire Arrows

[Lockcaps]

So this feature has been in every single TW-game that has bows in it, but i really feel like they don't make alot of sense. Let's look at a comparison between Rome1/Med2 and Shogun2 flaming arrows

R1/M2
Toggleable
Slower reload and worse accuracy
CAN set things on fire(Note: Very random)
Reduces morale slightly

S2
Ability with 3 minute cooldown
Same reload and accuracy
Can set things on fire, but not a particularily high chance
More powerful than normal arrows, seems like they cause more casualties
Reduces morale, more effective if the target is already Wavering.

This is how i would like to see flaming arrows in Rome2
-Toggleable HOWEVER - required that you either have arrows on walls or towers inside your city or are near a brazier(or something. Braziers would be deployable before battles. I also think being on walls/towers should resupply your archers, it's so illogical that you wouldn't have tons of extra arrows inside a city.
-Can set things on fire, chance should be abit higher than in previous games
-No more powerful than normal arrows, but reduces morale
-Good against ships

Discussion/Opinions?

[Hasforth9]

I like the brazier thing, put I really dislike the idea of a single fire arrow setting an adult man ablaze and turning him into a pile of coal in mere seconds

[Lockcaps]

I like the brazier thing, put I really dislike the idea of a single fire arrow setting an adult man ablaze and turning him into a pile of coal in mere seconds

Yeah that looked so silly.Also flaming arrows don't really burn that much, they do create alot of smoke though. It would be really cool if flaming arrows could ignite boiling oil also.

[Erwin Rommel]

I like the brazier thing, put I really dislike the idea of a single fire arrow setting an adult man ablaze and turning him into a pile of coal in mere seconds

I thought Shogun 2 got rid of that instaburn thing so beloved in M2 and Rome.

I mean they got hit with a flaming arrow, they die but not spontaneously combust, sure there is a flame on the ground and torso but it did not envelop the body instantly or wholly.

[Chris Death]

Braziers deployable before the battle would be an absolutely NOGO.

Sorry to say that but this idea can only come from a singleplayer
who knows he can do with the ai what he wants because they gonna
run into his traps without any sign of resistance.

This would destroy any flexibility in multiplayer where there are at least
two armies led by a human brain.

It would limit the movement of players who use fire arrows - so would it
make the skirmish phase boring - imagine both armies waiting on their side
of the field for the other one to come.

There are a whole lot more reasons why it wouldn't make sense in multiplayer
but i may leave others to tell aswell so that my post ain't going over 3 pages.

~S~ CD

[Petroniu]

Brazier or not, I don't want it to be an "ability". It was the lamest thing they could do: put the fire arrows in the same category as the warcry. You know what R2TW will bring? Pilum as an ability too. No wonder people are crying out for realism, CA is turning this game into an arcade instead of a historical strategy game. They are aiming for the under 16 not 16+ as they rate it.

[Lockcaps]

Brazier or not, I don't want it to be an "ability". It was the lamest thing they could do: put the fire arrows in the same category as the warcry. You know what R2TW will bring? Pilum as an ability too. No wonder people are crying out for realism, CA is turning this game into an arcade instead of a historical strategy game. They are aiming for the under 16 not 16+ as they rate it.

Where/when have they said that pilum will become an activatable ability? And why, unless this means that you can use an infinite number of pilum which would be really stupid, does it matter? "Omg i will use pilum by pressing an ability and targeting instead of rightclicking boohoo"

[Petroniu]

Where/when have they said that pilum will become an activatable ability? And why, unless this means that you can use an infinite number of pilum which would be really stupid, does it matter? "Omg i will use pilum by pressing an ability and targeting instead of rightclicking boohoo"

I never said that CA stated that the pilum will be an ability. But that's exactly what I am worried about. Now that you know how ridiculous that is, what if I told you that many people were making a case about the pilum becoming an ability a couple of weeks back in a thread in this forum? When I presented my arguments against it I was called and accufan and was told that I just rant about CA just because I didn't liked S2 (I was talking about the unrealistic way of making fire arrows as an ability just like OP did in this thread) - which is funny 'cuz I like S2 I just don't like the way they approached some things in it.

Awesome idea! I'm a little shocked if no-one at CA has thought of that. And I think they have but figured it might be a little overpowered. But I think that can be balanced by decreasing the rate of fire when the archers run out of their own stock of arrows to simulate the time it takes for them to get restocked.

No, not really. They didn't had "tons of arrows" in the city, but they certainly had more. I believe that according to the settlements size archers should have a certain percentage more arrows while defending a city. And not only archers - all missile type units.
Oh, crap, sorry for DP. I quoted and instead of copy pasting in the existent thread I pressed to post. My bad.

[iKossu]

I also think being on walls/towers should resupply your archers, it's so illogical that you wouldn't have tons of extra arrows inside a city.

Awesome idea! I'm a little shocked if no-one at CA has thought of that. And I think they have but figured it might be a little overpowered. But I think that can be balanced by decreasing the rate of fire when the archers run out of their own stock of arrows to simulate the time it takes for them to get restocked.

[JankoMega]

Surely this will be in, Rome 1 had it, and don't see the reason why such a big project such as Rome 2 shouldn't have em.

[Petroniu]

Nobody said that it won't be in, but everyone is discussing how it will and how they think it should be in.

[Lockcaps]

What purpose did flaming arrows serve historically, except for burning things(duh)? I mean, yes they look kinda cool but i don't see why you'd be more afraid of arrows with smoketrails(because that's essentially what they look like) and normal arrows - both will kill you. Weren't flaming arrows tips made of a rag soaked in oil, rather than a sharp tip? Because if so they would do LESS damage than normal ones.

Also, instead of a brazier you could have a "firetrail" that archers ignite their arrows on(first battle in Gladiator) that units could use anywhere but it takes them like 10-20 seconds to set up, or just allow them to carry the braziers around somehow, or solve it by other means - the problem is that it looks stupid to have archers pull out flaming arrows from nowhere.

[Petroniu]

(first battle in Gladiator)

This just killed your entire argument. You shouldn't be talking about movies in a forum lurking with accufans.

[Lockcaps]

This just killed your entire argument. You shouldn't be talking about movies in a forum lurking with accufans.

YES i know the movie is very inaccurate BUT does that mean that every single little thing is inaccurate? I mean, using tar or oil(whatever) do draw a line and set it on fire seems like a fairly reasonable way to give your archers an easier time igniting arrows, doesn't it? Also, what is my "argument" exactly? It's just a discussion about how flaming arrows could be implemented.

[Petroniu]

YES i know the movie is very inaccurate BUT does that mean that every single little thing is inaccurate? I mean, using tar or oil(whatever) do draw a line and set it on fire seems like a fairly reasonable way to give your archers an easier time igniting arrows, doesn't it? Also, what is my "argument" exactly? It's just a discussion about how flaming arrows could be implemented.

Your argument of using fire arrows in a different way and with a different purpose. If you don't know that, then it seems I was right when I pointed out the fact that you were using and inaccurate movie as an example. Plus, have you noticed the sign at the end? It implies that I was joking. Don't take everything so serious man.

[Orlorin]

Instead of braziers you deploy before battle, you could have supply wagons with the pots and various other items. (Arrows that disappear/ get carried as regiment shoots) Extra Sheilds for reformed units that dropped them, and maybe food depending on whether you were ambushed, marching in enemy territory) Not expecting much tho. THe wagons would be minor objectives in mp, but on the campaign map losing your supplies could be devastating.

[Chris Death]

Instead of braziers you deploy before battle, you could have supply wagons with the pots and various other items. (Arrows that disappear/ get carried as regiment shoots) Extra Sheilds for reformed units that dropped them, and maybe food depending on whether you were ambushed, marching in enemy territory) Not expecting much tho. THe wagons would be minor objectives in mp, but on the campaign map losing your supplies could be devastating.

But making differences between singleplayer and multiplayer will only cause frustration
on the multiplayer battlefield for both way way more than it already is the case.

Imagine you're a campaign player getting the "stupid" idea to go online because you already
got tons of heroic victories in campaign and then when you go online you do have to realize
that multiplayer sucks because those from the other side of the universe are using only
cheap tactics which would never work if they were "super duper AI".

Now from point of the multiplayer:

You get into a battle with a guy mentioned above and all you think is - what the heck is this
guy doing? Does he really think i am such an idiot to move where he wants to - or why is this
guy not supporting his troops with missiles but keeps them parked on the other side of
the river when the actual battle is happening right here right now?

Get my point?

~S~ CD

[Orlorin]

But making differences between singleplayer and multiplayer will only cause frustration
on the multiplayer battlefield for both way way more than it already is the case.

Imagine you're a campaign player getting the "stupid" idea to go online because you already
got tons of heroic victories in campaign and then when you go online you do have to realize
that multiplayer sucks because those from the other side of the universe are using only
cheap tactics which would never work if they were "super duper AI".

Now from point of the multiplayer:

You get into a battle with a guy mentioned above and all you think is - what the heck is this
guy doing? Does he really think i am such an idiot to move where he wants to - or why is this
guy not supporting his troops with missiles but keeps them parked on the other side of
the river when the actual battle is happening right here right now?

Get my point?

~S~ CD

No, the point is that fire arrows should take effort and tactics to utilize. I see no need for them to be mobile. The norm would not be to use fire arrows (as it is in reality) it should be mainly for seiges, defensive scenarios, sea battles. They don't actually have many real advantages over real arrows when hitting people, and should only have a moral penalty.

[Chris Death]

No, the point is that fire arrows should take effort and tactics to utilize. I see no need for them to be mobile. The norm would not be to use fire arrows (as it is in reality) it should be mainly for seiges, defensive scenarios, sea battles. They don't actually have many real advantages over real arrows when hitting people, and should only have a moral penalty.

The problem is;

Most people are getting too deep into thinking; what we see should exactly reflect how it happened
in real life.

You know there were those strategy games where a simple square with an x inside represented
a whole battalion - nowadays we came to the point where a bunch of 3000 animated soldiers
do simulate armies of 60.000 or so.

Same goes for the archers - it is just a way how they want you to get attached to having the feel
like it's "closer" to reality - but it still is not reality.

Those 120 archers lined up 3 ranks deep do not really show us how it was in reality - they are just
a step closer to it than the square with the x in the middle.

It is hillarious to think that archers where lined up like we see them on the battlefield and when
their general ordered them a 50 meters to the right and 20 steps back that it would have looked
like we see it ingame.

Now considering this, the request for most of the stuff being asked for in this thread seems a bit
minor to me.

~S~ CD

[Petroniu]

Now considering this, the request for most of the stuff being asked for in this thread seems a bit
minor to me.

~S~ CD

Dude, we just want the fire arrows to be toggled and not an option because with the possibilities of today's engines we can simulate more and more realism. If you don't want to take advantage of that, go play your x squares that represent a battalion, I don't hold you back. But CA instead of trying to simulate realism more, due to the advances in technology, they go back on it because it's more ""gamey". Well, I am glad you agree with them. And now that modders are being more and more restricted from making the game the way I'd want to, I have to accept the "gamey" game and deal with it.
And when you think it's 16+ but they keep trying to dumb it down.