So during the United States Revolutionary War, one of the things (in my limited, layperson understanding of that time in history) that stood out was how the Minutemen and otherwise fought, compared to the British. The British had the concept of "gentlemanly warfare" where certain rules were observed, such as each side "taking turns" to shoot. Each army presenting themselves on the field before the fighting started, etc.
While we all know that this failed the British in many different battles and even wars throughout history, I believe the Minutemen and others who fought to free America were unique at that time because the Minutemen and other fighters weren't specifically considered savages by the British, and they expected them to therefore follow their rules of battle.
Today with the advent of robotics, technology, and determination, we have seen at least one new front open up (Cyberwarfare), and the other fronts (physical, i.e. air, land, sea) change dramatically. Even countries that many might consider backwards and highly underdeveloped have poured millions into robotics, into drones, and especially into cyberwarfare.
This made me think. Since the time of the Revolutionary war (in the US), have there been calls to return to a form of "gentlemanly warfare" such as the British used to use? Or to use other competitions, or create wargames that would settle things wars typically do?
If so, what amount of seriousness/weight did these proposals have? Heads of state, or at least those who worked in the government? Or just people who write articles or give speeches tossing the idea out there? Has anybody given significant thought into this in the past century or so?
I believe that this question arises out of a false premise, that the British military - or really any military, for that matter - has ever practiced "gentlemanly warfare" as you describe it. While this is a popular misconception in the United States, especially about the revolutionary war, it is ultimately still a misconception.
The truth is, linear tactics as practiced by the British became the norm simply because of their effectiveness. Muzzle-loading smoothbore firearms, such as the Brown Bess used by the British, were not very accurate at longer distances. To increase the effective range of any given mass of men, lines could be formed to allow many men with many muskets to fire at one singular target.
Linear tactics had several other advantages. By having many men standing shoulder-to-shoulder, in a line close to their officers and non-commissioned officers, orders could be given and relayed promptly throughout the line, and as such, tactical maneuvering was made easier. Additionally, should cavalry or another formation of men charge the line, the line could match that charge with a defense that would be much more effective than if the line were spaced out.
Not to mention, discipline was a factor. If you feel confident that there are men all around you fighting just the same way as you are - as in, you are not fighting alone - you are generally going to be less likely to break in the face of losses or some intimidating enemy action, such as a cavalry charge.
This is not to say, however, that lines were the only thing used by the British. Indeed, skirmishing was a very real thing, but the thing about skirmishers is that they are only very effective if they are armed with a rifle (which did exist at the time, though they were impractical to issue to the average soldier) and are well-trained in its usage, as well as being well-trained in the usage of skirmish tactics.
Riflemen required more training and more expensive equipment, so they could not really form the backbone of any given army. Both the British and the United States used both linear tactics, and skirmishing tactics at various given points of the war.
As for the common misconception that either side would "take turns" to shoot, this is simply a false conclusion drawn from an observation of such an 18th century battlefield. If either side was truly slugging it out by simply shooting at each other in "turns" over and over again, it would usually either be because they were confident they'd eventually win, or as a form of delay for some other tactical purpose.
Humans are always looking for more effective ways to kill each other, and at any point in history, a side which intentionally clings on to methods of warfare which are not the most effective available to them usually loses. So in general, it is a bad starting point to look at any place in historical warfare and conclude that they were simply "stupid" or "too focused on being gentlemanly". Usually, they're just using the strategy and tactics which they truly believe to be most effective at the time.
It should also be noted that the United States would continue using linear tactics up to the American Civil War, so clearly the Americans did not think so badly of British linear tactics.
Edit: It should be noted that the British would not have a standard-issue rifle until 1800, after the Revolutionary War had ended, with the adoption of the Baker Rifle. At the same time, the "Experimental Rifle Corps" was made, which would go on to become the famous 95th Rifles regiment; and yes, their decision to do this was no doubt at least partially influenced by their experiences in the Revolutionary War.
Nevertheless, skirmishing tactics were not something incredibly new or revolutionary to either side, and linear tactics still had their place for all participants in the war.