Quote from: Christopher Brady;943010I hate this statement. It's amazing blind to one MAJOR fact.  Most of the Formations are formed with SIMILAR types of soldiery.  The average (modern) adventuring party is so disparate that formation fighting is useless.  You need a select group of swordsmen, pikemen or archers, but a single soldier, a thief, magic-user and priest, and a doubling up of maybe a fighter or rogue or two, still not going to be a very good formation.  Especially given the mechanical disparity between some of the classes.

May I respectfully disagree? In yesterday's D&D session, we had a very disparate group: Drow Ranger, Human Fighter, Tiefling Ranger, Tiefling Warlock, Human Monk, Human Cleric (me). All 1st level, except for the Drow who is 2nd. The first time this group played, they had the usual loose band of adventurers and got slaughtered; the second time, they used some of my tactical ideas and survived. This third session, they adopted the tactical fomation we used to use all the time, and breezed through Castle Blackmoor's 2nd level with no problems.

What we use to call ' the marching order was: 1st rank - H. Monk, H. Fighter; 2nd - T. Ranger, T. Warlock; 3rd - H. Cleric, D. Ranger. The idea is that the armored people are front and back, with the lightly-armored people in the middle, and these also have ranged weapons/spells to provide 'fire support' to the engaged ranks. So, her looked into a room, and the front two checked it out while the middle two covered them and us; we got hit from behind, but we'd kept a good look-out; the 'Shade' hit my partner, and the Ranger hit it with an arrow and I hit it with a spell. Killed it dead; this was the sort of being that had nearly wiped out the party in the previous game session, and the new 'tactical' approach that the party took made all the difference, the group thought. I got some very nice words from all of them, and I was very pleased to see them using my experiences and advice; I am not the party leader, but I am turning into a sort of 'elder statesman' / veteran adventurer...

So, what I'd call 'micro-tactics', which is what I think Gronan was getting at, and a very diverse group - but maximized to take advantage of strengths and minimize weaknesses . And a very diverse modern kind of group, which is what I think you were getting at.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943010It's amazing blind to one MAJOR fact.

To quote Alec Baldwin's Trump: "Wrong."

Of course, if your rules encourage players to scatter all over the place, fighting individually against all foes no matter the circumstances, terrain, etc., then sure, you don't need formations or even tactics. Just roll some dice, shout "BAM!" "POW!" like comicbook superheroes, and have fun.

Quote from: AsenRG;943048There are more formations under the Sun, Cupcake, than your philosophy teaches.

There are more threads under the Sun than you can imagine where Cupcake demonstrates he knows nothing about either tactics OR old school D&D.

Oneof the most curious things about Chainmail is that it was intended for use with 40mm sale miniatures.

This is a scale I rather like, but is incredibly obscure these days. I have a few figures in 40mm (namely the rare Monolith Hellboy miniatures), but on the whole the idea of creating an army in 40mm these days, even for historicals, would be quite limited and prohibitively expensive (and I say that as someone who has entire Forgeworld armies). And perhaps because of the surviving companies from that era,such as MinifFigs, Essex, and Grenadier, I tend to associate the 70s and early 80s mostly with the true 25mm scale (which in itself is starting to get obscure, but not quite costly).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943010I hate this statement.

Of course you do.
1. Gronan said it.
2. It relates somwhat to Old School D&D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943010Most of the Formations are formed with SIMILAR types of soldiery.

A single unit, yes.  Armies however are made up of several different types of units, each performing a specific function and placed in the position where that they can best accomplish that function.  You don't put archers in front for the opposing infantrymen to cut through before they get to your infantrymen, for example.  Troops with more mobility protect the flanks, etc.  All of these are tactics based on things like speed, distance, armor, shields, weapon type, essentially basic laws of physics applied to melee combat.  

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943010The average (modern) adventuring party is so disparate that formation fighting is useless.  You need a select group of swordsmen, pikemen or archers, but a single soldier, a thief, magic-user and priest, and a doubling up of maybe a fighter or rogue or two, still not going to be a very good formation. Especially given the mechanical disparity between some of the classes.

And yet the exact same laws of physics apply, and some of the logic behind large scale formations applies equally well to small-scale formations.  People who can last longer in melee and take the most damage should be positioned where they will face the most melee.  People who cannot and have other talents should be placed where they can be the most effective.

Armored Melee Fighters front and center, ranged and casters behind, mobile characters able to move flexibly where needed, rear guard to protect flanking...how is a marching order not a formation?  Obviously, it is.

The problem is, it sounds like you don't want to consider the realities of the situation you're in and play your part in winning the parties' conflicts, you want to WTFPWNBBQ!! everything by button-mashing because you're a Big Damn Hero.  Or else you simply don't want to be told that something other than your limited gaming experience might actually help you.

Or, it's just The Curse.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;943204There are more threads under the Sun than you can imagine where Cupcake demonstrates he knows nothing about either tactics OR old school D&D.

I've seen a few. That's enough for me;).

OTOH, there's only so few where your reply to him can be with an almost exact Hamlett quote:D!

Quote from: CRKrueger;943271Or, it's just The Curse.

It's Deja Vu all over agaiin!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942981I agree with you completely, and so does most of history.  Really, formation matters even in groups as small as five or six.

That my experience with small adventuring groups LARPS. I realize that using foam weapons and lighter gear (because of modern materials) doesn't replicate fully the experience of medieval warfare. Somehow the groups that organize themselves do way better than the groups that fight as individuals. There are few exception because one or two members of the group would be an insanely good athletes but then again I seen organized groups with insanely good athletes do that much better because of their organization.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942981I think a big part of it is that people don't WANT to play that way; movies where the protagonists are in battle usually show it as a series of one on one fights with extras milling around in the background, and that's what players want.  More like a superhero comic book than what I picture a medieval battle or skirmish being like.

Having been involved extensively with both boffer LARPS and tabletop RPGs I seen this issue time and time again. In generally what turns a group around to using formations is another group's example. Or somebody exerting experienced leadership to get the group to try an organized formation. Of the two witnessing another group in action is more effective whether it is tabletop or LARPs.

The nice thing about the Internet that we have all these podcasts and youtube shows. As well as people like you telling how it is.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;943010I hate this statement. It's amazing blind to one MAJOR fact.  Most of the Formations are formed with SIMILAR types of soldiery. /QUOTE]

Combined arms, look it up. It been a thing throughout history.

Quote from: RunningLaser;942989I think that there's a great number of people who play rpg's and wargames that don't know much if anything about tactics.  I am one of those people....

• 3 to 1 odds are generally needed to assure victory
• That 3 to 1 is in terms of firepower not just bodies.
• The odds genearlly only matter at the point of contact. See the 300 Spartans or Agincourt
• In face of a divided enemy in general you throw everything at one section if you can defeat them before the other section can engage
• Flankling is a good thing by threating to force the fight into the enemy's rear and increasing the odds at the end of the enemy's formation.
• Put people who can soak damage in the front and center, mobile fighters to the sides, and ranged attackers to the rear.
• Note that some weapons have reach, so you can have your second rank attack as well as your frontline fights. This increase the odds at the center of the melee.
• By lining up in a row, you can easily generate a series of two on one or three on one fights.

Quote from: estar;943412

• 3 to 1 odds are generally needed to assure victory
• That 3 to 1 is in terms of firepower not just bodies.
• The odds genearlly only matter at the point of contact. See the 300 Spartans or Agincourt
• In face of a divided enemy in general you throw everything at one section if you can defeat them before the other section can engage
• Flankling is a good thing by threating to force the fight into the enemy's rear and increasing the odds at the end of the enemy's formation.
• Put people who can soak damage in the front and center, mobile fighters to the sides, and ranged attackers to the rear.
• Note that some weapons have reach, so you can have your second rank attack as well as your frontline fights. This increase the odds at the center of the melee.
• By lining up in a row, you can easily generate a series of two on one or three on one fights.

Also:
9. Terrain is your friend, if you use it against the enemy or to strengthen yourself. A fortification is just terrain.
10. If you can't use it, deny its use to the enemy.
11. If the terrain favours the enemy, the smart move is to retreat.
12. The real smart move in the previous situation is to find a way to turn the disadvantageous terrain into advantageous.
13. Time your offensive to fight when you're at your strongest, and the enemy at his weakest.
14. An army with no supply lines is like a man without breath: you must just keep the stranglehold on it. Retreat that elongates a supply line makes it easier to cut. For that matter, the supply lines begin in the enemy's capital!
15. Counterattack or threatening to attack is part of your defence, but you can't rely solely on it, unless you're really good. Make sure to always have a secure place to retreat to. Only attack decisively when you expect the enemy wouldn't be able to retaliate.
16. All defence must be part of your attack, too.
17. If you can't win an exchange, cut your losses.
18. Misleading the enemy is the second best to overpowering him, and can contribute greatly to it. Psychological advantage is basically the same.

Hope that helps;).

Quote from: RunningLaser;942989I think that there's a great number of people who play rpg's and wargames that don't know much if anything about tactics.  I am one of those people....

To quote myself on the ODD74 board:

IN my first CHAINMAIL battle, I was horrendously confused. I had no idea what most of these things were... I had heard of swords, and Vikings, and chainmail, but I had never heard of a halberd, or a Landsknecht, or a turcopole, or an arquebus, etc, etc, etc.

So the next week I toddled my little butt down to the Lake Geneva Public Library and started reading.

Here's a good place to start:
//www.amazon.com/Medieval-warfare-Terence-Wise/dp/0803853793
And another
//www.amazon.com/ENGLISH-WEAPONS-WARFARE-499-1600-D/dp/0853684723/ref=la_B001H9TEVO_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426375958&sr=1-2