Age of Strategy Forums

Basically a more mobile fire archer. Same attack and special as a fire archer, rest of stats same as mounted archer.

Why do not we add this unit? 5 turn cost

May this was already discussed
Anyway

I don't like the mounted idea.


We'll have a hun rider with melle range but good mobility.
Two siege for burning.
1ship


Already enough sources of burning to deal with buildings.

Historically :
"Shooting fire from the back of a horse is a one time ride"

I wud not spent 5 turn on an mounted fire unit.
Better invest in logistic of regular.

We should instead focus on Greek fire thrower infantry and ships, which could also have area burning effect like fire ball

Why cant the horse archer carry a fire bow , if they can carry a poisoned bow ?
Are the Horses scared of fire?
If so , not now. They are given additional training to be bold against fire.
Stats same as Poison Horse Archer and instead of poison , flaming weapon.

From a realism point of view, I find it a little unbelievable. Fire archers are on foot, so I imagine they start a small fire at their feet with a tinderbox or something like that, dip the arrow head in the flames, and then shoot.
I'm not sure where the mounted archer would get the flame from, as you can't readily start a fire while mounted, and you definitely can't keep all your arrows lit.

That said, I like the idea from a gameplay perspective!

Merged.

Flavour/realism reason was stated already.
Balance-wise: buildings and siege machines are supposed to be weakness of archer category and whole archery building. There is one exclusion in the form of fire archer, that allows to somehow not be totally defenseless, but there is no real need to expand this.

Lol, only a true Chad would be able to shoot a fiery bow whilst riding a horse.