Why the notion of fire arrows is nonsense.

[The Despondent Mind]

Even since the first RTW when I barely knew anything about history or weapons, I always thought the idea of fire arrows is kind of fishy, like why would they do more damage to the men or morale? An arrow burning is hardly gonna ignite your whole body, because it is a highly flamable material, wouldn't it damage or destroy the arrow? And why would it lower morale? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Anyway fast forward 11 years later and historical TW still have fire arrows for some reason and not just that but in Attila they explicitly do most damage for some reason (Correct me if I am wrong).

If you don't understand me try Lindybeige:

[stevehoos]

Fire, it seems is what people equate with battles in the Dark Ages, along with female warriors and fading leather Roman wrist bands. Most perceptions of history are a couple of magazine articles and a dozen or so movies.


Fire arrows from mounted units is equivalent to having a unit of recruitable battle trolls as well. All Total War games have had a bit of nonsense in them, but Attila has taken it to new heights with the auto tower collapse.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Yep.

We've actually tested the whole "fire arrow" thing using a replica of one of the ballista cage bolts found at... Dura Europos I think. Basically behind the point of the ballista bolt is a little lemon-shaped cage made of 3-5 metal bars curving back onto the socket of the bolt. Anything lit on fire will go out, what you do is you soak a rag in oil and let it smolder, and when the smoldering rag lands on something highly flammable like grain, dry hay, etc, it will eventually catch it.

But no, what you see in the movies is .

[green tea]

I just read Caesar: "The gallic war" (not entirely but more than half), and in it he describes how a typical siege against the gallic barbarians is done: The roman army is walking to the walls and throwing spears (not burning spears) until all defenders have fled the walls. Then the troops can storm the wall unharassed, and fight in the common way in the streets. No flaming arrows, no automatic towers shooting back, no ballistae (if I remember correctly, he mentions some scorpions somewhere but not in an important role in the siege), absolutely no catapults, especially no greek fire in the catapults, no gunpowder or laser weapons. (At least Cesar mentions some archers and balearic slingers, which he uses to defend a besieged city).

But that is too boring for a modern game, since we all have seen "Gladiator" and "The Lord of the Rings" (Siege of Osgiliath) and "Saving Private Ryan" and many other well-researched movies from the roman/medieval period. So, yes, in an "authentic" battle, you would have many men throwing spears and killing each other with short swords and other unspectacular stuff. Which would give some very boring reviews.

So they put all this ranged weapon with fire/explosions in it, which looks quite nice in night battles. And most gamers are simply not interested in those boring battles Cesar described. I would, and maybe 10-20 other nice guys from TWC, which does not matter since it is all about the money.

And that is the story how the hunnic hordes on their ponies were finally able to use flaming arrows while riding at maximum speed.

[Fanest]

Anyway fast forward 11 years later and historical TW still have fire arrows for some reason and not just that but in Attila they explicitly do most damage for some reason (Correct me if I am wrong).

Nope, fire arrows dont do the most damage, they are useful only vs cav, and to give fire morale penalty to units. Against infantry heavy shot is the most useful - deals most damage.

[geala]

Fire arrows are indeed a bit of a nonsense in the manner they are portrayed in the game although they were sometimes used in reality in certain situations, sieges for example. But from my point of view any fault of a TW game which is solved by a simple mod is no real fault. In my game there are no fire arrows.

[Theramines]

I take Lindybeige's lectures with a grain of salt, as everyone should do with every historian. That said, I enjoy his videos and have had my thinking changed or influenced by him on a few topics.

Anyway, except for mounted units, fire arrows are one of those fantasy elements introduced by CA that I don't mind. I'm sure some of you would agree that in Attila they have been the catalyst for some of the most spectacular and apocalyptic battle scenes in Total War.

[The Despondent Mind]

Nope, fire arrows dont do the most damage, they are useful only vs cav, and to give fire morale penalty to units. Against infantry heavy shot is the most useful - deals most damage.

I think that is if you count armor piercing damage, but base damage is the highest, though I may be wrong.

I take Lindybeige's lectures with a grain of salt, as everyone should do with every historian. That said, I enjoy his videos and have had my thinking changed or influenced by him on a few topics.

Anyway, except for mounted units, fire arrows are one of those fantasy elements introduced by CA that I don't mind. I'm sure some of you would agree that in Attila they have been the catalyst for some of the most spectacular and apocalyptic battle scenes in Total War.

Here's the thing, the conventional historians just mumble, write theories and show a shocking lack of understanding of ancient warfare (I have read a Crusades historian who basically claims "Arrows shootie, arrows kill knights".

While people like Lindybeige actually take a goddamn weapon or object and test as authentically as possible on how could it work. No amount of PHD on History works can disprove basic physics or human anatomy.

[zsimmortal]

Wouldn't mind it for attacking buildings like towers or houses, or for defenders in sieges, but it is ridiculous how damaging they generally are.

[Fanest]

I think that is if you count armor piercing damage, but base damage is the highest, though I may be wrong.

that changed soon after release, so fire arrows are useful only for what i said before

[Zom]

So they put all this ranged weapon with fire/explosions in it, which looks quite nice in night battles. And most gamers are simply not interested in those boring battles Cesar described. I would, and maybe 10-20 other nice guys from TWC, which does not matter since it is all about the money.

And that is why historical miniature wargaming will always be superior to computer games.

[Humble Warrior]

I always thought fire arrows were stupid even from the 1st Rome Total War over a decade ago. It didn`t make logical sense. Even without tha video in the OP`s post (which is good), I couldn`t understand where they got the fire from in the first place in a battle. the only feasible use for them seem to be in sieges and only to try and set wooden structures alight- And that didn`t always work.

I managed to mod it out of Rome 1 and MTW2 (the stupid flamethrowers I also modded out).

[Gronndar]

My greatest annoyance are those explosive shots that large onagers use. Fire arrows, they are just there, but explosive shots are too op. I always put one in my army, even though it almost feels like cheating

[Fanest]

My greatest annoyance are those explosive shots that large onagers use.

If u would play against (smart) human players more u would soon realize how useless they actually are. Its only because AI cant counter them that some players use them alot. However in Attila pretty much every faction has a much better alternative unit to fill that army slot that catapult takes.

[Gronndar]

If u would play against (smart) human players more u would soon realize how useless they actually are. Its only because AI cant counter them that some players use them alot. However in Attila pretty much every faction has a much better alternative unit to fill that army slot that catapult takes.

Yeah, I don't think that other player would march towards catapults in straight line. but on.campaign they are too good. Considering how huns spam them, other ai don't have logic against them.