how do you all feel about the fire effects.?

**lawandorder82** · April 09, 2015, 01:48 AM

I think it is finally awesome that you can use fire arrows or onagers to set trees towers and settlements on fire.

**Imperator Artorius** · April 09, 2015, 05:18 AM

It is a cool addition, but its a shame they didn't go a step further with it so that units in forests take damage from the trees being set on fire, or rout out of the trees. Smoke affecting LoS would also have made for some really interesting tactics, i.e. setting fire to a forest or even tar pits so that the smoke blows across your units and covers your approach. A little out of Attila's timeframe, but the Mongols made very effective use of smoke at the Battles of Liegnitz and Mohi. It would have been terrific if we could replicate that in game.

**Humble Warrior** · April 09, 2015, 06:04 AM

It`s an ok effect.

**Bob the Insane** · April 09, 2015, 07:09 AM

I like it, I think it is a positive addition to the series...

Not so happy with the negative modifiers for Attack & Defence that come from settlement damage (fine with the Morale impact)...

Also not particularly happy that it is based on the overall level of damage to the settlement as opposed to the relative increase in damage that occurs during this battle (though altering the above would make this less of an impact), nothing quite like starting a battle with -16 to Attack, Defence and Morale simply because you are fighting in a ruin rather than next a ruin...

**crucify_ego** · April 09, 2015, 07:10 AM

Totally unnecessary. Would have rather had improved campaign and battle ai.

**Neige** · April 09, 2015, 07:23 AM

Just a theory, I remember them saying the performance hit compared to Rome 2 was due to an engine update. But apart from the new burning mechanics the battles don't seem that much different from Rome 2 to me. And if that's actually the big reason behind the performance hit, I'd much rather have the old engine with no burning and good performance.

Other than that, the burning is really cool, although its effects on battles definitely need to be adjusted.

**Humble Warrior** · April 09, 2015, 07:31 AM

Fires don`t really mean anything. i`m just glad they don`t use up my framerates. But for me, I hate the fact that the walls crumble down and NOBODY fixes it back up. That`s not what happens in sieges, I don`t care how long you siege them. The defenders would immediately reblock and reinforce the walls. No one would just sit there, leaving huge holes for the enemy to barge through, no General or captain would have that- sure make the walls weaker, and therby not take so much to take down, but not open holes. It`s assinine. Illogical.

I still hate that aspect of sieges.

**Imperator Artorius** · April 09, 2015, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Humble Warrior

Fires don`t really mean anything. i`m just glad they don`t use up my framerates. But for me, I hate the fact that the walls crumble down and NOBODY fixes it back up. That`s not what happens in sieges, I don`t care how long you siege them. The defenders would immediately reblock and reinforce the walls. No one would just sit there, leaving huge holes for the enemy to barge through, no General or captain would have that- sure make the walls weaker, and therby not take so much to take down, but not open holes. It`s assinine. Illogical.

I still hate that aspect of sieges.

The day CA accurately depicts siege warfare will be the day I ride a flying pig into McDonalds and apply for a job there.

**Diocle** · April 09, 2015, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Humble Warrior

Fires don`t really mean anything. i`m just glad they don`t use up my framerates. But for me, I hate the fact that the walls crumble down and NOBODY fixes it back up. That`s not what happens in sieges, I don`t care how long you siege them. The defenders would immediately reblock and reinforce the walls. No one would just sit there, leaving huge holes for the enemy to barge through, no General or captain would have that- sure make the walls weaker, and therby not take so much to take down, but not open holes. It`s assinine. Illogical.

I still hate that aspect of sieges.

It's not an aspect of sieges, it's just an aspect of the retarded and asinine mind of the programmer who has had this "brilliant" idea! Walls crumbling down for magic! It's the most idiotic feature I've ever seen in any rts I've ever played!

**Neige** · April 09, 2015, 08:00 AM

I think calling it asinine or idiotic is an exaggeration, it's not that bad IMO... But still one can only wonder why the devs thought simply making the walls weaker wasn't a much better option. I can only guess they wanted to make it easier for the AI to take settlements. Although given the state of the AI and its sieging potential, it doesn't look like it made an impact. How many times have you fought a defensive siege in a walled settlement? I have yet to do that. Anyway, I think we're going off topic here.

**lawandorder82** · April 09, 2015, 11:30 AM

Imagine if we had the burning fire effects in rome 2 or shogun 2 total war just like Attila . It would be interesting to see.

**SPARTAN VI** · April 09, 2015, 11:39 AM

The fire mechanic is interesting, but the visual effect on the battlefield is pretty poor compared to Shogun 2.

Shogun 2: FotS, skip to 14:18

Attila TW, skip to 0:47

**Imperator Artorius** · April 10, 2015, 08:30 AM

Shogun 2 is just a beautiful looking game full stop tbh

**booker** · April 10, 2015, 04:26 PM

Warning

The request contains an invalid URL!

**evenflowjimbo** · April 10, 2015, 05:02 PM

I seriously forgot about the fire effects until I played the game.

"Oh look, that cart is on fire and it's spreading!"

After that, I kind of just tossed it aside.