The difference between duels and battles

[Dangerious P. Cats]

It's been covered in a few other threads (not that I object to further deiscussion here) that the skills for massed combat and for indevidual combat are different, and that someone who will proform well in a shield wall may die very quickly in a duel (and vice versa). I'm wondering how to modle this in GURPS at TLs 0-4 (High and ultra tech likly require different rules for different threads). What skills would someone who is trained only to fight in a massed battle have compared to someone who has only trained in indevidual combat?

[jason taylor]

Battles require more endurance. A duelist can continue leading everyday life until the dual.

Battles require less individual prowess and finesse and depend more on team work. Unless you are thinking of the more primitive viking or celtic variety. Even their, the chance would be that any given foe you end up matched to will be at least as incompetent as you.

[jason taylor]

In a battle you have someone next to you to look after you. You also have someone next to you that you have to look after.

[Xplo]

Training people to fight well takes a long time, which makes it costly - and impractical if you need troops ASAP. So someone who's trained well enough to fight in formation (phalanx, shield wall, whatever) is probably actually not a very good fighter, just cannon fodder brought up to a basic level of competence.

In GURPS terms, you can expect him to be an average human with maybe a point in each of Soldier, Shield, and a weapon like Shortsword or Spear (in that order - it's nice if your soldiers actually know how to kill the enemy, but the most important thing is staying in formation and keeping the shields up, and if they can get in a good blow now and then for the sake of self-preservation, great). I forget what perks or techniques exist that specifically give a bonus to fighting in formation, but trained soldiers would ideally have one or more of those.

The duelist will have superior combat skills as the result of dedicated training, with multiple points in their preferred weapon(s) as well as in something like Shield or Knife (Main-Gauche), and possibly dueling-related techniques. In a straight comparison, they're deadlier fighters. However, they wouldn't necessarily have any training with military weapons, they may not know how to use a shield, and there would be no reason for them to have Soldier or anything formation-related.

Stick the duelist in a group, and he'll have trouble moving and fighting in lockstep with the rest and won't be able to protect himself or his neighbors as well as a trained formation fighter might.. and if members of his formation start going down, the duelist will find himself outnumbered by the enemy.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Dangerious P. Cats

It's been covered in a few other threads (not that I object to further deiscussion here) that the skills for massed combat and for indevidual combat are different, and that someone who will proform well in a shield wall may die very quickly in a duel (and vice versa). I'm wondering how to modle this in GURPS at TLs 0-4 (High and ultra tech likly require different rules for different threads). What skills would someone who is trained only to fight in a massed battle have compared to someone who has only trained in indevidual combat?

As far as skills go, the main difference is Soldier. A duelist can fare very well without it, a fighter who enters combat in formation cannot lack it. The trained infantryman will probably have Hiking.

Apart from that, it's a matter of preferences. For instance, a duelist might make use of his off-hand with Knife, Main Gauche, Cloak, or even unarmed combat skills, while the soldier will almost always use Shield. But then again there are combat formations where the soldier's left hand is needed for the main weapon too, and duelists who use bucklers.
Likewise, duelists will probably not favor polearms, but they could learn some long-reach weapon skill as a secondary weapon; whereas phalanxes rely on polearms at the expense of anything else. If a duelist has Polearm, then I'd bet he knows how to change grips to use it at shorter reaches than usual, while on the contrary the formation combat soldier might never use it that way.

You may personalize better with Perks, Techniques, and assorted preferred options. For instance, both medieval shield-wall formations and Roman legion formations will easily begin the melee with a shield rush, and bashes will often be used in the ensuing pushing contest; if the duelist is placed in that front rank with a shield on his left arm and he's never used one, he will be at a disadvantage not just when it comes to Block his direct foe's thrust, but also in the offensive use of the shield at the time of this initial rush or bash.

[jason taylor]

Well take a look at some of the equipment just to start.

A Hoplite panoply is absolutely unfit for dueling. Or for hunting or chasing thieves or indeed anything else but being a hoplite.

A rapier is not really a good weapon for battle.

[Kalzazz]

I recall hearing stories about how ancient Japanese soldiers with experience in war would wind up in duels with Japanese courtiers who had no experience in battle but a lot of training

Dont know if thats pure fiction though

[ULFGARD]

One of the main differences is the focus of the fight. Is it a duel to the death? I duel to first blood? I.e., what is the point of duels in the background?

Even a good duelist has nowhere to run in a shield wall or other formation -- if he's unlucky enough to be at a point in the battle where the worst fighting takes place, nothing -- not even superior skill -- will save him. Of course, that's not a very heroic "truth" of battle, but it comes down much more to luck than to skill.

Ultimately, as others have pointed out that the typical soldier will likely be far less skilled individually, but are trained to fight in a group. A duelist with appropriate weapon skills can do this, too, and so several duelists with appropriate weapon skills will, on average, make a better unit than the cannon fodder soldiers.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Battles require less individual prowess and finesse and depend more on team work. Unless you are thinking of the more primitive viking or celtic variety. Even their, the chance would be that any given foe you end up matched to will be at least as incompetent as you.

You're letting your Bias show. I know you think the romans were the end-all, be-all of military tradition, but to assume that all other peoples were "primitive" by comparison is a dangerous and ill-founded notion. Warfare, being a matter of life and death, is a very "market-driven" part of ancient life, in that things which don't work, DONT WORK and you die. And then people do things differently.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Well take a look at some of the equipment just to start.

A Hoplite panoply is absolutely unfit for dueling. Or for hunting or chasing thieves or indeed anything else but being a hoplite.

A rapier is not really a good weapon for battle.

This is only important if you assume that all Duels are fought with rapiers. What of duels between Knights with broadsword and shield(or halberd, for that matter?). The primary difference between a duel and a battle is that Duel is going to be between two people, according to social conventions and with matched weaponry.