Note: I'm not interested in discussing the merits with rules light systems vs rules heavy systems, and I don't want to step on any toes by bringing up GNS theory. I just want your input on this system, and I'm doing my best to get my point across, despite it being 5 in the morning over here and I can't remember the last time I slept more than two hours. So bear with me on this one. Thanks.

To make a long story short, I'm constructing what could be considered a fairly rules-heavy system. The system is a mix of simulationist, gamist and narrativist philosophies (if you subscribe to the GNS newsletter). The part of the system I'm going to be asking about in this post is the combat part. This part is mostly gamist (by introducing different maneuvers that have different strengths and weaknesses, I'm hoping for combat to be more of an exercise in tactics than dice-rolling).

So... The system was born out of a discussion me and a friend had, concerning ranges in close combat. We basically began devising a system for handling duels, a system we thought would be more interesting than just rolling initiative, making an attack roll, making a defense roll and maybe rolling damage.
So in a duel type situation, what you do is the following. You have a number of distance classes to describe the distance between the fighters, and what maneuvers are available to them. In this particular system, maybe you'd have:
Grapple (with the maneuvers grapple, elbow/knee/head butt, stab)
Punch (with the maneuvers punch, kick, thrust with short weapon*, attack with pommel, etc)
Short (with the maneuvers thrust/chop with short weapon*, thrust with long weapon*)
Long (with the maneuvers thrust/chop with long weapon, attack with pommel of polearm)
Polearm (with the maneuvers attack with polearm, cock firearm and shoot the other poor bastard in the face, etc)
(This list of distance classes and associated maneuvers is by no means final, I just wrote it up, and I'm using it as an example. I won't disregard criticism concerning the list, but the list itself isn't the point of the post.)

What, then, do you do with the distance classes? I'm thinking that it'd work out something like this.
The person who wins the initiative (haven't really decided how that's going to be decided) decides at what distance he wants to initiate combat. If he chooses to perform a maneuver that is performed at the current distance class, he is free to do so (and it all plays out according to the standard roll attack, roll defense, roll damage). If he wants to perform a maneuver that is at a larger or smaller distance, he'll get a penalty to his attack roll (which will increase with each distance he is away from his "goal distance"). Additionally, if he wants to perform a maneuver which is closer to the opponent than the current distance class, the opponent gets some kind of opportunity to keep him at bay (because a weapon with long reach is still supposed to be better than one without). To keep the distance less static, the distance will shift whenever a maneuver is performed that has another ideal distance. So if we're duking it out at punch distance, and I decide to elbow my opponent, we will end up at grapple distance after the maneuver is resolved. I'm thinking of setting it up so that you have one instant/standard/complex/whatever action, which you use to fight, and a move action which you can use after that one. That way, you could (for example), attack your rapier-wielding opponent with your own sword, then move really close to him so that he can't attack you back effectively. This reduces the risk of fights boiling down to attack w/ sword > defend > change roles and repeat.

The real issue I have with this is that, despite the possibility of it making close combat a little spicier than it is most of the time (and of course, the risk that it will bog it down to no end. But you have to try to find out, right?), is that it can't really handle battles with multiple opponents (yeah, I know I said it was mainly a dueling system, but it would be kind of awkward to have two different combat systems depending on if you have more than one opponent). I have this vague idea of having the outnumbered fighter having to roll to keep his opponents at such an angle that they can't really engage him efficiently (which is, from my limited experience, the only real chance you have of winning a fight against two opponents*), so they'd have to come at him one at a time. Any suggestions as to how you could handle this? Or more specifically, how do you, efficiently, track distances when you have more than one opponent? Do you track distances to each opponent specifically? The system kind of breaks down when you move away from the whole duels-thing, so I'd appreciate a new perspective on all of this.

There's another thing I need some help with. This system, or rather a modified version of it, could probably be used to some effect, to simulate verbal or social combat. The distance system would then represent the tone of the conversation. The problem is, I don't really have much experience with systems that deal with social combat, so I'm all ears as to what you might suggest. I'm having trouble coming up with "distances" as well as maneuvers, and any tips concerning systems (preferably free or easily available) that deal with social combat are appreciated.

*at least with swords/staves/whatever. We fooled around a bit with 2vs1 matches during kendo practice; I have -extremely- limited experience of unarmed fighting. Yeah, I know how cliché it is to talk about your amazing real life experience of chopping people to bits, when you're discussing an RPG combat system, but it kind of made sense to bring it up, don't you think?

I think it would be wise to concentrate on this as a duelling system first.  If it can be brought to fruition, you can then take another look at turning it into a more general system.  Even there, it is indeed quite possible to have a duelling system in conjunction with a general system, if the setting is such that characters likely to use the duelling system are rare.  Frex, Highlander and Star Wars - in both cases a specialist duelling system would reinforce the special nature of those characters.

Fates Worse Than Death has a system that uses different weapon ranges in melee in some detail, although frankly I forget the specifics.  It might be worth looking at as a comparison though.

I'm not sure I'd worry about social combat just yet, but one suggestion that accords loosely with your ranges is the degree of escalation in a conversation.  The lowest degree of escalation is a calm and reasonable tone, passing upward to raised voices, outright yelling, full bore tantrums.

Hi!
  First things first, um, I don't think you have to be so defensive. Some gamers might try and show you another way to look at things, but they are still going to be polite and not pressure you into any discussion you don't want to participate in...

  OK, after that, I say, if you are embracing your inner crunch, then use this system for all combat. Tracking this distance between multiple characters won't be too much harder than any other system that tracks range...

  If you wanna good idea about unarmed combat watch some MMA. There are some rules, but it seems like the best way to beat someone without rules is pretty close to what they do in MMA or UFC fights...

  I think that hostility is a good measure of range/reach in social situations as long as the maneuvers then follow the same theme and are somehow restricted as to what you can use based on hostility...

  Anyways, good luck man!

You might want to look at Burning Wheel, it covers much of the things you talk about with ranges and multiple opponents and a system that works along similar lines for social combat as well.

I have worked to get a game that models real life combat, having been involved in WMA since an early age. I found that trackings pecific ranges really bogs things down, BW seems to do it quite well with its system.

You could also consider phases of the combat rather than specifc distances, free moving,  grappling etc

JW