I'm working on a game and thinking about implementing a very described but noninteractive combat system to it, but I wanted to see what everyone thought about that first. I'm going to describe the system here, and I would appreciate any comments on it.

The original idea was to make combat a little bit more in depth than just the standard stand there taking turns hitting each other until one person dies combat-system. So I thought about adding more detail to the system. Add in different stances to start the combat, and give the player more choices. For example one player might start in the ox ward and the other in the fool ward. Player 1 would select to slash out towards Player 2's right side. Player 2 would then have some options, such as raise his sword to deflect the blow upwards, or step to the side and push the blow past him, or make a quick stab and hope to hit first. The result of each selection would be based on various factors. If player 2 is quick trying to make an attack might be the most likely to succeed, whereas if they were real strong knocking the blow upwards might create an opening, etc. etc.

The problem here, though, is that it slows combat down to a crawl and probably sounds better than it really would turn out to be. I can't really imagine an interface that would work out all that well. Plus with all the different variables one of two things would probably happen: 1) the players wouldn't understand the combat system because it's too obtuse or 2) the players would understand the combat system and just start using a small number of attacks they found to be most effective.

Which brought me to the current version of the combat system I'm now considering. What if instead of the player making every decision in combat, the character makes the decisions. There really is no way to communicate all the different tiny things the character is noticing and thinking to the player, so why not let the character operate on his own in combat? It would be sort of similiar to play-by-play coverage of a sports game. As the battle progressed you'd be told everything that's going on. "Player 1 assumes a roof ward and Player 2 assumes a broad ward. Player 1 has taken the initiative and attacked first, bringing his sword down in an arc towards Player 2's head. Player 2 lunges to the side out of the path of Player 1's sword and stabs out at Player 1. He's a little offbalanced from that lunge and Player 1 is able to knock the stab aside. Player 2 withdraws, making sweeping cuts in front of him to prevent player 1 from following. Player 1 does likewise and they regroup for another attack." It's worth mentioning that this game isn't solely focused on combat, that a player can be very successful without ever lifting a sword, so combat doesn't necessarily have to hold the players interest as closely as in most rpgs.

What does everyone think? Is the whole system flawed and should I stick with a classic battle system? Do you prefer the original idea of controlling every parry and blade move despite any slowness and tough interfaces? Am I better off leaving the whole battle to the character, or should the player be able to make some decisions? Should the player direct the general strategy (aggressiveness, which defenses to prefer, how dangerous of attacks to make, etc.)? Any comments are appreciated.