I have been told many times anecdotally and in history coursework that battles from the ancient era and especially in Napoleonic wars were "scheduled", in that commanders would meet prior to engagement to determine the location and date (and even time!) for their armies to form up for battle. They would shake hands, depart, and keep their word until they met at the predetermined time and place for battle. I know this couldn't always be the case, but was it common for scenarios like this to occur prior to modern battle tactics?
Absolutely not, this is one of the many supposed ideas about the Early Modern Era that people like to spout without knowing the full background of the era.
Warfare was a careful and precise art before the French Revolution, which I shall get to later. First I must discuss the basic tactics of the era, linear warfare. Based on the model of line infantry, linear warfare required men to form into lines of infantry and mardi with precision to stay in formation of three to four men deep and however men long. As such, warfare was slow because parade ground style formations would take time to cross uneven fields. While it may seem foolish to stand in a line and get shot at, it existed for a reason, it allowed men to stay together and allowed officers to maintain command while maximizing the effectiveness of inaccurate weapons through accuracy by volume.
This linear model is the full realization of both the Enligthened ideal of warfare (precise, mechanical, and orderly) but also the limitation of warfare after the Thirty Years War. The Thirty Years War was seen in the 18th century as a time of excessive destruction that should never be repeated. It sas a time of near to absolute total war where States were dependent on mercenaries to supplement loss of men and armies over a long series of destructive wars. So to limit war, Kingdoms (better described as States) would create standing armies that would fight their wars.
With the tactics in mind, it should be noted that the commanders of armies not only needed to be aware of their men and the enemy's army, as well as their position, but how the chosen battlefield might favor the enemy over their own. Further there is an awareness of both the use of State resources (the army) and the possible loss of said resources that would result in a disastous in terms of state resources and falling into a cycle of destructive warfare.
However the two enemies couldn't and wouldn't discuss when To meet because they would be suspicious of the intentions of the other side but also the riot it would cause if the generals were discussing battle locations in their respective capitals. And so, the two generals would simply try to,position each other against forests or rivers to force a battle by intelligent movement of their armies.