Greentext

4595 readers

852 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

534

Anon studies history (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 10 months ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

87 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

TLDR- a close formation lets you concentrate your firepower at one point.

Can't they just all aim at the same spot no matter where they're standing?

[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They only had a range of like 50 yards. Split your troops up and they can't aim at the same point because they wouldn't all have the range to hit it.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago

I mean you can still have guys standing further apart than shoulder to shoulder. 50 yards is still something to play with.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

On a vast featureless plain, yes. But you won't be overly surprised to learn most battles were fought over some form of terrain, and not a mathematics textbook.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago

I thought line of sight would be an exceedingly obvious requirement, but I suppose some people need it spelled out for them.