Who brings a knife to a gun-fight?

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Champion duels aren't particularly pragmatic either.

If they're simply a part of a larger battle, it's not clear how they change anything. If they're instead of a larger battle, obviously they save a lot of destruction...but you could save even more by settling the matter with a game of chess instead. And a champion duel isn't any better than a chess showdown for determining who would actually win in a battle.

I've bolded the assumptions you are taking for granted.

Many kinds of warfare have units that do greatly effect the outcome of the battle: Champions in pre-formation warfare, knights in medival europe, aircraft in many modern situations. Any of these will normally kill a lot of units, and you counter them by simply replying with your own.

If that is the situation, and both sides have other enemies to worry about, its best to pit the units that will decide the battle against each other as a 'champions match'. Presumably the outcome of the battle is the same (as the deciding arm is the same), and you didn't loose all of the conscripts you would have in a pitched battle.

Close Battles are costly affairs. If you are fighting an honest to goodness one on one war, that doesn't matter. If you are dealing with a complex political situation, its advantageous.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I've bolded the assumptions you are taking for granted.

Many kinds of warfare have units that do greatly effect the outcome of the battle: Champions in pre-formation warfare, knights in medival europe, aircraft in many modern situations. Any of these will normally kill a lot of units, and you counter them by simply replying with your own.

If that is the situation, and both sides have other enemies to worry about, its best to pit the units that will decide the battle against each other as a 'champions match'. Presumably the outcome of the battle is the same (as the deciding arm is the same), and you didn't loose all of the conscripts you would have in a pitched battle.

Close Battles are costly affairs. If you are fighting an honest to goodness one on one war, that doesn't matter. If you are dealing with a complex political situation, its advantageous.

Problem is with that is champion vs. champion (or elite vs. elite) was actually a resource maintenance tactic. It's was mainly employed by people who just can't afford to lose large numbers of able bodied people who will otherwise be responsible for keeping you society fed and warm win or lose.

dedicated soldiers had one job to fight*. So while they are individually resource intensive to train, equip and maintain and you don't waste them by any means if they're fighting their earning their keep.

Once warm bodies become a less critical resource (and equipping them less of a burden) to gamble the out come on your best chap not having an off day becomes less attractive.

*and keep the chaps with the big hats in power.