i've been wrestling with how far I should go to help my players.
First, all my players have been playing D&D for a long time, these are not new players. We are all still adjusting to 5th edition, but otherwise know full well how RPGs work. If they were new to the game, I'd do it differently, but they're experienced. They're also great people (I think I have the best group of players I could hope for, our game is almost completely drama-free, it's great).
The issue is my players either come up with cockamamie ideas that I have to let fail because of their silliness, or they use really poor tactics when they have the tools to use great ones. Note they are really sincere about it, too, they are not simply trolling the game.
For example, the caster is constantly splitting his attack spells against multiple targets instead of focuing on eliminating one enemy at a time. I let him do it and adjudicate accordingly, but it does make him less effective. Another player is constantly coming up with whacky, even cartoonish, ideas in combat situations that also make him really ineffective. It puts me in a position where I have to constantly say "it doesn't work", which I'd rather not do. In both cases, they are constantly forgetting to use some abilities that would really be awesome and let them be effective.
I'm the kind of DM who wants his players to be effective, and I'm saddened that they don't play their characters effectively. But I'm also the type of DM who wants to be the neutral party. I create & present the scenarios and adjudicate the action, but otherwise try to stay out the players' way. I like to think I'm flexible and let cool stuff happen, but I also have to be realistic. I also love it when they figure something out on their own. I hate spoon-feeding players and try to avoid that, but wonder if I should do that more.
How far do you go to help your players succeed? Or do you let them figure it out on their own?
Just enough, so they still think they did it themselves 
Eh depends on the players I would guess. And you could always create your adventures with less go/no-go scenarios and instead have more go/go-with-great-disadvantage scenarios instead.
For instance, instead of having the players solve a puzzle or else they all loose and the campaign stops, have them sovle a puzzule withoin a time limit and if they fail the trap will spring and summon, monsters or some cones of cold, but they would still be able to continue on their way.
Do you have an in-game example where you were in doubt?
You may want to reread my OP, I was editting it when you replied.
My players are great, they work out ways to work together. Like the sword/board fighter who regularly knocks an opponent prone but uses his second attack on another target, just so the rogue can come in and use sneak attack.
Dictating your players how to play the game won't be fun for anyone. You'll have to be subtle about it. Maybe give them tactical hints through your npcs. For example let them be attacked by kobolds and have a kobold caster cast magic missile on multiple targets, only to be yelled at by his leader to not be stupid and focus on one target. Or let an npc bard tell a story that involves a creative use of a spell.
How I do it:
1. When I get a new group I always ask the question how much help they want. Should I try to kill them off the best as I can? Or do they rather want an experience that feels dangerous but doesn't actually have a chance of them dying. This usually already makes it clear to me how my players want me to DM (in that regard anyway).
2. When we finish a chapter, I'll do a "What could have been" about things that can no longer be undone. I will always tell them what other possibilities they had and give example on how they could have solved certain things better. That way they learn for the future.
3. I usually don't help them mid-game unless I think that if I don't help them it will ruin their game experience. In that case I try to give subtle hints.
I am new at DMing 5e so I don't always give the most balanced encounters. With that in mind, the last thing that I want to see is a TPW, so I try to give logically thought out safety valves.
A couple of sessions ago, the party passed through an abandoned village where members of the military had set up a post. The squad captain didn't quite trust their story (they were lying to him) but let them pass and unknown to the party sent a soldier to trail them. The next encounter went poorly and they were down to 2 out of 6 PCs alive when the soldier appeared to aid them. He fell quickly but turned the tide in their favor. He had been trailing them the entire time and would have made his presence known had they survived the encounter and made it to the guard station at the next main town. They ended up healing the soldier and he reported at the guard station as would have happened anyway.
Early on, their party gained a favor from the ghost/spectre? of a fallen warrior so they can always see what can be done for resurrecting a party member that meets their demise.
It's all about having fun on both sides of the screen. After each session, the players will ask things like "what would have happened if we'd done _____?" As DMs know, you have to have a lot of contingencies planned out in advance because you never know what they players will throw at you.
One of the things I still occasionally run into is letting go. I mean I know what would be the most effective strategy for the group (I also seem to play the strategist when I'm a player too) and when they don't see the obvous tactic it does bother me.
But just because they don't use my tactics or even effective tactics they are having fun, so I just let it go.
At other times they will come up with some really, really stupid plan. I try to figure out if there is any chance of it happening it does, often with comic effect and not exactly like they expected. I look at the intent of what they are trying to do and see if I can make it work.
If I can't figure out a way to make it work, I just tell them or they fail miserably. But if I can? I let it happen because they're having fun.
I try to take the attitude that the game world I am running is not really for me, the DM, it's for the players.
Having said that there do have to be boundaries, you have to decide how "realistic" the game is and what the boundaries are.
So have an NPC talk to the wizard about his tactics. An old wizard, long retired, gives him some pointers. Or just chat with him after the game.
For the guy with the goofy plan, you may want to look at what he's intending to do and say something like "You know that won't work any better for you than it would for Wile E Coyote, but if you did this instead you think it might work." Tweak his idea just enough to make it possible.
At a certain point you just have to let people play the way they want to play, even if it is stupid.
I don't Want anything out of the characters. All I want is to evoke an emotional response in my players, to have a fun game, and bring as much metal as I can.
It sounds like, effective or not, your players are having a fun game. I therefore advise you do nothing.
Where there is no solution, there is also no problem.
Sometimes when the PCs come up with absurd ideas and strategies, I think "would it be ridiculous and awesome if this would work?" And if the answer is yes...well, maybe I set the difficulty a little lower. Especially if it's something novel that I never would have thought of.
As far as the players forgetting about their own abilities, I might say something like “I’m surprised you didn’t use your action surge back there” after combat is over.
Sometimes my job is to make make the PCs sweat, challenge the heck out of them. Sometimes my job is to give them opportunities to be awesome. Like Bawlie said, as long as everyone is having fun, that's what's important.
Barky wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
If it’s super-creative, I don’t mind as much. What does kinda bother me is when it’s just a player relying on a high dice roll, rather than using ingenuity.
Speaking of paladins and laying on hands, I once had a big battle with a “rabid” unicorn completely nerfed when the paladin used their cure disease ability to heal the unicorn, thus circumventing both the combat and moral challenge of it. I was completely taken off guard, and it was actually awesome.
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
Ralif_Redhammer wrote:
Even worse some other Pc comes up with a creative idea to thwart your specially crafted challenge for a another specific Pc.
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
Stuntman wrote:
Barky wrote: