This post may be of some use to you. While I think his latter point about the ACW is a bit misplaced his first point on the American Revolutionary War is on point.

This is largely a misconception. While the US milita did occasionally use "guerrilla" tactics (Guerrilla warfare wasnt a thing until the French Campaigns in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars, so on that level the Americans couldnt practice guerrilla warfare) such as hit and run attacks, and the use of loose formations and cover (skirmisher tactics), most major actions fought in the AR followed traditional European tactics. This is especially true of the George Washington's Campaigns. Most Revolutionary battles were fought using the linear tactics (men in a line firing mass volleys).

But it gets confusing, because when people talk about George Washington's general strategy, he actually did emphasize a strategy of delay and "hit and run" battles. Washington did an good job keeping the American army out of serious action, and instead focused on attacking isolated British detachments, and then fleeing before the main force could intervene in the battle. But where these armies met, they fought in the tried and true linear style.

But the AR armies (both the British and the Americans) incorporated units which fought "Indian style", or using skirmisher/light infantry tactics. These units did abandon the line, and usually took advantage of the available terrain and cover to attack the enemy. They even used rifles, to improve accuracy and deal more precise damage to the enemy. But these troops didnt form the great majority of troops on either side. They were useful in difficult terrain (like forests, rocky places, ect.) where they could attack a disorganized enemy, or attacking the enemy's flanks and rear. But against a disciplined and determined enemy, light infantry didnt have the power to hold off the enemy, and a strong volley (which they British were capable of delivering) could wreck even a loose skirmisher formation. They were useful, but tactics in the 18th century could not operate with light infantry alone.

Another issue I want to discuss though is honor. It had nothing to do with honor but practicality as is briefly went over in the post above. Light infantry tactics and "guerrilla" tactics just flat out weren't that useful in the 18th century because concentrated volley fire and discipline would win out just about every single time unless we're talking a disproportionate tilt of numbers on either side.

Putting your men in a line protects them from cavalry (as they are able to operate as a whole rather than a bunch of scattered individuals), protects them from artillery (cannons at this time either used solid balls or later timed fuses while also operating at preset ranges -- it would require absolute precision and a lot of luck to get a direct hit on a line and even if you did you're hitting them orthogonally so it only affects a few), and allows them to concentrate their fire while also being easier to command. It allows complex maneuvers like 'fire and advance' where one line kneels, shoots, reloads while the last line runs up between the gaps a few feet ahead, shoots, the last line runs up and shoots and in the meanwhile those in the back are reloading. It would be almost like machine gun fire -- suppressing the enemy, laying down massive fire, and also advancing. Fredrick the Great would be notorious for his fire and advance tactics; traditionally he would do it for 2-4 volleys and then charge with bayonets to crush the faltered enemy.