Framework to improve AI squad building and long term games

FM09 is without doubt the best game in the series in terms of realism and fun, particulary now the game is producing quality regens on a consistent basis and the new transfer system code is the best yet. One area though that needs a big revamp imo is AI squad building.

At present long term games become annoying and eventually unplayable because AI squads are a mess, too many old players, too many players in one position and not enough in other positions, reserve squads with washed up players on long term contracts and all this results in financial trouble and inconsistency in terms of league titles being won by different random sides each year on 70 points!

I have been thinking what if a system could be coded into the game to give the AI managers more intelligence when squad building? I propose the following:

Squad Size

Each AI team should be limited to 25 first team players for each season. 25 is the perfect number, 3 goalkeepers, and two players for each position. Im not saying they have to be registered like in Spain, but a code in the game that the AI sticks to each pre-season, but of course are still able to use reserves and youth players if needs be. This along with my second point below stops clubs spending millions on a position that is already covered with quality and stops squad size getting out of control which results in many unhappy players and low morale.

Using Preferred Formation to Build Squads

Each manager has a preferred formation in their profile, so why not have the AI managers buying players based on that formation? I think im right in saying at present the AI buys players on CA alone, not taking into account players already in the squad and his formation? If a manager has 4-4-2 for example set in his profile, he should want 4 wingers and 4 strikers in the first team squad, no more. How often in FM do you see big clubs spending millions on a winger when they already have 5?? Again 2 players for each position and 3 goalkeepers = 25.

Average Age

Managers should aim to keep the average age of their squad between 24 and 26. This solves the issue of too many 30+ players with rapidly declining stats getting new deals, but of course leaves room for players of that age that do deserve to still be in the squad.

Reserve Squads

Age limit should be 23, but AI managers can still tell first team players of any age to play in reserve games as is the current way. The more the game goes on the more ridiculous the amount of money spent on reserve players wages due to first team players been demoted and ignored. Once 24, they either sell them, release them or are part of the 25 man first team squad.

Buying for the Future

Id like to see alot more AI activity in snapping up young players for their youth teams, just as we do. This means more consistent flow of players into their reserve and senior squads.

I know some of you are going to point out that these restrictions don't exist irl so why should they in FM and if we don't have to follow these guidelines then why should the AI??

To that I would say well it is only a computer game after all. It's either stick with the current mess or have strict guidelines for the AI so their squads are neat, organised, realistic and competetive in the long run, because lets face it, most managers irl stick to this theory any after all! I haven't made it up, im going on years of following football!

In terms of whether it gives us an advantage over the AI, I couldn't disagree more. I think it creates an equal level as we all stick to these guidelines anyway! It's a nightmare trying to keep a squad of more than 25 players happy! Also, im guessing most of you keep your reserve teams fairly young on low wages?

Thoughts/Suggestions?

Thanks.

Couldn't agree more. The AI teams failure to be competitive - or even sane - in squad building and transfer dealings is the biggest problem in the FM series. Come on SI; make a great game even better.

25... or 23?

25... or 23?

11 x 2 = 22.....+ 3 goalkeepers = 25

Sorry I explained it poorly in my original post... the 22 includes 2 utillity players!

I agree with the principle but not necessarily with some of your suggestions. For example, average squad age is something I would expect to differ from team to team. Wenger’s Arsenal focuses more in bringing through youth players while Allardyce’s Bolton of old used to bring in veterans and try to get one or two more seasons out of them. We need more variation because atm there’s not really much difference in management styles.

11 x 2 = 22.....+ 3 goalkeepers = 25

Sorry I explained it poorly in my original post... the 22 includes 2 utillity players!

25 as an absolute maximum, surely?

In fact, it could probably be added as stat/preference for reach manager because each manager has difference preference for this sort of thing. As a Blackburn fan, Allardyce is talking about trimming our squad down to 18 first teamers backed up by youngsters. I always remember Mourinho talking about 21 as well and trying to cut their squad down.

Someone like Wenger doesn't keep a huge first team either but rather relies on youth to back the first team up. The 25 figure wouldn't work there.

Great idea in principal though, it would make the game a whole lot better if the AI managers were more realistic.

instead of fixing to size of the first team squad to 25, the club chairmans stats could dictate any changes in this number say +/- x number of players

I agree with the principle but not necessarily with some of your suggestions. For example, average squad age is something I would expect to differ from team to team. Wenger’s Arsenal focuses more in bringing through youth players while Allardyce’s Bolton of old used to bring in veterans and try to get one or two more seasons out of them. We need more variation because atm there’s not really much difference in management styles.

But at the moment in FM there is no difference, all the AI squads head towards the 30 age mark, no matter what youth facillities etc.. I would rather it stays mid 20's than everyone with aging squads. Variation would be great, but until the AI is good enough for that I think this issue should be addresed asap

I agree with the principle but not necessarily with some of your suggestions. For example, average squad age is something I would expect to differ from team to team. Wenger’s Arsenal focuses more in bringing through youth players while Allardyce’s Bolton of old used to bring in veterans and try to get one or two more seasons out of them. We need more variation because atm there’s not really much difference in management styles.

25 as an absolute maximum, surely?

In fact, it could probably be added as stat/preference for reach manager because each manager has difference preference for this sort of thing. As a Blackburn fan, Allardyce is talking about trimming our squad down to 18 first teamers backed up by youngsters. I always remember Mourinho talking about 21 as well and trying to cut their squad down.

Someone like Wenger doesn't keep a huge first team either but rather relies on youth to back the first team up. The 25 figure wouldn't work there.

Great idea in principal though, it would make the game a whole lot better if the AI managers were more realistic.

Varying squad sizes could work as long as the managers are buying based on formations. I just said 25 as a marker as I feel for this to work there would have to be a squad limit. Im no computer programmer though so would be interesting to hear from SI

I fully agree that this is something which needs looking at - I remember one (in)famous case where an AI manager bought my star winger for 20M .. but didn't play a formation which could utilize him, so he languished on the bench for two seasons, and I bought him back for 0.5M.

The AI manager should have been well aware that the player didn't play any positions which he used in his preferred formation, and so should never have bought him.

I'm not sure the "fixed size" approach is quite correct, though - my thinking varies fairly dramatically depending on where I'm at.

When managing in the Blue Square North or Welsh Premier, for example, 25 players might run me bankrupt. I'll aim for something a lot closer to 18, with a premium on versatile players for my bench and injury cover. When I'm a Man U or the like, I'm certainly looking at about 40 outfield players. I usually have a starter in mind for each position, plus a rotation alternative. If my starter is young, my alternate is a cagey veteran; if my starter is a veteran, my alternate is a youngster whom I'm blooding. Beyond that, I have a hot prospect who I am looking to loan out, and a youth player who is likely to see sparing action off the bench.

. . .

One way I've thought of SI approaching that is the idea of a one year / three year / five year plan.

I'll explain with four example players:

A 30-year-old star striker. In my one-year plan, he's 7 stars. When I think of a three-year plan, I have to accept that he's likely to have aged. I'd guess a loss of a star per year up to 32, so the AI weights him as a 5 star player for its three-year plan, and doesn't expect him to last until he's 34, so it rates him as a 0 star player for its five-year plan.

A 26-year-old star winger. He's 7 stars, and not expected to do much aging, so he rates out as 7 stars for all three plans.

A 22-year-old fullback. He's currently 5 stars, but has 7 star potential. He rates as 5 stars for the one-year plan, maybe 6 stars for the three-year plan, and 7 stars for the five-year plan.

An 18-year-old striker. He's currently 3 stars, but has 7 star potential. He might rate out as 3 stars for now, 5 stars for the three-year plan, and 7 stars for the five-year plan.

Once you have that, make sure that each contract and each transfer fits a need, in one of the plans.

If the 30-year-old and the 18-year-old are my only two quality strikers, the team has an immediate need for a striker (one-year-plan: 7 star, 3 star) and a long-term need for a striker (five-year plan: 0 star, 7 star), plus clear need for a "cover" striker. It might choose to address those needs by picking up a quality 25-year-old if it can afford him (say, 6 stars for all three plans) and maybe a 28-year-old four-star for cover, or by picking up two players, another veteran and another promising youngster.

The decisions also inform contract negotiations, esp. contract renewals for young players - there's no sense letting quality players get loose on a Bosman if they have a place in your long-term plans.

Finally, the decision informs sales. So, let's say our hypothetical striker situation, our team picked up the 25-year-old and the 28-year-old. Now we have something like this:

30-year-old: 7 star, 5 star, 0 star

28-year-old: 4 star, 4 star, 2 star

25-year-old: 6 star, 6 star, 6 star

18-year-old: 3 star, 5 star, 7 star

Now the team fires its manager, and brings in a guy who only needs one striker. He wants to trim this group to "two strikers", but he's cagey enough to know that he needs two strikers in all three categories. The 28-year-old goes on the transfer list, because he's not the top-two striker in any category. The 30-year-old does not, but the new manager would not renew his contract past its second season, because by the three-year-plan, he is no longer necessary. He can leave on a Bosman then.

I think that replaces your "target average age" mechanic with something that achieves what you really want: teams which neither over-pay decrepit veterans, nor fail to retain their promising youngsters.

This is a good well thought out post I agree with pretty much all of it. My missus plays as Arsenal and has 27 players in the first team squad and through rotation there hasnt been a single unhappy player in the 3 seasons of the big squad, it keeps everybody fit and their condition is usually very high. This also allows her to pick the best players for the biggest games and the squad can cope with alot of injuries.

Buying for the Future

Id like to see alot more AI activity in snapping up young players for their youth teams, just as we do. This means more consistent flow of players into their reserve and senior squads.

Or maybe, they should make it harder to sign youth players and also more difficult for scouts to spot those talents and less accurate scouts reports.

That would stop people from buying every 7 star potential rated player they see. And could also make young players with high PA more prone to not reach is full potential and become a flop.

Also, less regens with super high PA.

Amaroq, brilliant post, as usual, extremely thorough and well thought out. In my opinion, this would be a fantastic way to implement more competitive AI management and transfer dealings over the course of a longer-term save.

I'm surely not the first to have asked this, but why are you not working for SI?

The AI not buying for the future?!!!In my save i check the regens every year with Genie Scout.On the day that regens are created i found a Swiss goalkepper with CA over 170 and great stats and i didn't even put him on my shortlist only to find the next day that Barcelona buoght him for 1.5 mil.He was in the game only 1 day and Barcelona scouts found him instantly

i think the AI is good enough. in my game arsenal win it nearly EVERY season and im in 2025 .

and ive been in a few title chases and NEVER won it despite possesing a competitive squad.

just cause you can pip the league every season with man u dont mean the ai aint good enough.

completely agree that this needs to be addressed. really ruins the game.

The AI not buying for the future?!!!In my save i check the regens every year with Genie Scout.On the day that regens are created i found a Swiss goalkepper with CA over 170 and great stats and i didn't even put him on my shortlist only to find the next day that Barcelona buoght him for 1.5 mil.He was in the game only 1 day and Barcelona scouts found him instantly

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=84121

As well as improving their squad, some efforts need to be made to make sure that the AI uses some sense in squad selection to ensure their players get the appropriate number of games to keep them happy and develop them at the club but atm it’s not happening as well as you might expect.

Fro example, Man Utd might play West Brom in the league on Sunday before their clash with Barcelona in the Champions League on the Tuesday. In reality you’d expect several stars to be rested or on the bench for the league game, but in FM you’ll see them field a full strength XI for the league game followed by another full strength XI for the CL game.

Another example is attitudes towards cup competitions. I grow tired of drawing someone like Arsenal in the league cup and thinking I have a chance because they won’t field a strong side only to find out that they’ve picked their best possible XI.

These are the perfect occasions for AI clubs to blood youngsters, give some backup player football to keep him happy, give the reserve keeper a run out and so on, but if just doesn’t happen so you end up with a squad full of players where the regulars are all perfectly happy but the youngsters / backup players all get unhappy and leave.

This isnt a million miles from how it has worked for some years.

However if things arent working properly in the latest release its a cert that we will be looking to improve things for FM2010. In addition to our internal testing team we now also have a large beta testing team made up from folks on these forums who will have plenty of opportunity to shout at us if things arent right.

We really want to make things as good as possible in this respect.

That's very encouraging to 'hear'. To my mind Dar2000 and Amaroq have made excellent specific suggestions that appear to be eminently codable. We can quibble over specific details such as optimum aI squad sizes, but the general principles are top class and if implemented would make a huge difference to long-term campaigns which are commonly thought to be a weakpoint in FM. Recently an SI employee admitted that testing long-term campaigns is extremely difficult; it strikes me that these ideas are so sensible that they could be coded without any serious danger of disastrous knock-on effects.

Don't you agree?

The AI not buying for the future?!!!In my save i check the regens every year with Genie Scout.On the day that regens are created i found a Swiss goalkepper with CA over 170 and great stats and i didn't even put him on my shortlist only to find the next day that Barcelona buoght him for 1.5 mil.He was in the game only 1 day and Barcelona scouts found him instantly

Well, if he had CA 170+, then that's hardly buying for the future. That's buying for the now - he'd probably go straight into the first team, even for Barca.

yes couldnt agree more, id like to see AI squad managers have better team building etc..

Consider for one moment though how many already whine over the "difficulty" of the game and how that would increase drastically if the AI actually managed to manage its squad properly?

Also, as i see it in my seasons in 09 the AI clubs do buy young talents proactively - i at least have plenty competition for the young players i want to buy. Especially regens I often fail to have my scouts find before they're bought up by the AI - im more leaning towards slightly reducing how fast they find/sign regens to make their scouts find them at the same level as the scouts of the human player.

Consider for one moment though how many already whine over the "difficulty" of the game and how that would increase drastically if the AI actually managed to manage its squad properly?

Not really. Most of the whining is about the short term (first couple of seasons) - because the whiners don't get past then . Most of this is directed at improving the AI in the long run.

I really like the suggestions, seriously.

But I've just got one little moan about it.

Imagine the following:

You could go and look at an AI squad, if they had 23 or 24 players you'd easily be able to see exactly what that AI would do in the next transfer window. If he's only got one DL you know he'll almost be forced to sign one, if it's an MC he's lacking you'll know what he'll do.

I don't think it should be so rigid, but perhaps "strict" managers (Capello/Hodgson) can be more inclined to always have 25 players and follow the other rules, and more relaxed ones like Slaven Bilic could be a bit more flexible?

Just what I'm trying to say, for any AI in any game to be a challange it needs to be a bit unpredictable and "fuzzy". If you know too many of the rules that governs the AI you can predict and play on it.

I really like the suggestions, seriously.

But I've just got one little moan about it.

Imagine the following:

You could go and look at an AI squad, if they had 23 or 24 players you'd easily be able to see exactly what that AI would do in the next transfer window. If he's only got one DL you know he'll almost be forced to sign one, if it's an MC he's lacking you'll know what he'll do.

I don't think it should be so rigid, but perhaps "strict" managers (Capello/Hodgson) can be more inclined to always have 25 players and follow the other rules, and more relaxed ones like Slaven Bilic could be a bit more flexible?

Just what I'm trying to say, for any AI in any game to be a challange it needs to be a bit unpredictable and "fuzzy". If you know too many of the rules that governs the AI you can predict and play on it.

But that's pretty realistic. If a team is lacking players for a particular position IRL, then it ain't rocket science to work out that they're going to try an fill the gap.

That said, I do agree with the idea of "fuzziness". Personally, I'd make 25 the limit - if the AI goes over this, they will look to reduce the team size, though they would still ensure they get a good deal for any players they let go - but not force the AI to always have it. Some managers should be happy with less.

Yet Liverpool and Arsenal have around 60 professionals each IRL.......

Mostly in the reserve/youth teams

Contextual decisions are never easy to programme for an AI so that human players that play against it are consistently happy. Even the greatest quantity of highly inter-related contextual based decision making is, over the long term, likely to leave the human user feeling that the AI is inadequate.

While this is a fair topic I would suggest that those that are deeply dissapointed with the current system attempt to reduce their complaints to specific principles that could be addressed, for example weighing Age against PA as a means for selecting players in high odds matches. Complaints don't help where situations are troublesome but suggestions based on understanding most certainly do, I imagine.

Yet Liverpool and Arsenal have around 60 professionals each IRL.......

But in long-term games Liverpool and Arsenal never have this amount of players left in their squads after a few years.

But in long-term games Liverpool and Arsenal never have this amount of players left in their squads after a few years.

How many players do you have? Lack of complete real world accuracy is not inherantly a problem. Lack of relative function most certainly is.

in my game arsenal do dave.

why do you want to make an already difficult ai even better?

real teams and managers make mistakes in terms of squad building aswell. Chelsea when they started under mourinho built a great squad, after a couple of years he let the likes of duff, robben and gudjonsen go an they started deterioating as a team.

i feel all this is already reflected in the game

AI may be difficult at game start, but we want that maintained after 3, 5, 10 and 20 seasons etc.

Game start is produced by the replication of real world decisions by real world managers within the context of the game system. After 3, 5, 10, and 20 years to produce the equivelant immersion you will have to replicate their thought process within the context of the game system, which happens to contain 3, 5, 10 and 20 years of human player involvement.

I don't doubt the commitment of those involved but if I am going to ask those critical of FM for some basis in reality why would I ask less of those involved with the development studio? To defend the attempt to replicate realism over 20 seasons is admirable. To achieve it is impossible.

Difficulty for the average user is not the exact same issue.

Well, if he had CA 170+, then that's hardly buying for the future. That's buying for the now - he'd probably go straight into the first team, even for Barca.

He's squad status was hot prospect.And what is more important how can Barcelona's scout find him if he was in the game only 1 day!!!!!!!

I fully agree that this is something which needs looking at - I remember one (in)famous case where an AI manager bought my star winger for 20M .. but didn't play a formation which could utilize him, so he languished on the bench for two seasons, and I bought him back for 0.5M.

The AI manager should have been well aware that the player didn't play any positions which he used in his preferred formation, and so should never have bought him.

I'm not sure the "fixed size" approach is quite correct, though - my thinking varies fairly dramatically depending on where I'm at.

When managing in the Blue Square North or Welsh Premier, for example, 25 players might run me bankrupt. I'll aim for something a lot closer to 18, with a premium on versatile players for my bench and injury cover. When I'm a Man U or the like, I'm certainly looking at about 40 outfield players. I usually have a starter in mind for each position, plus a rotation alternative. If my starter is young, my alternate is a cagey veteran; if my starter is a veteran, my alternate is a youngster whom I'm blooding. Beyond that, I have a hot prospect who I am looking to loan out, and a youth player who is likely to see sparing action off the bench.

. . .

One way I've thought of SI approaching that is the idea of a one year / three year / five year plan.

I'll explain with four example players:

A 30-year-old star striker. In my one-year plan, he's 7 stars. When I think of a three-year plan, I have to accept that he's likely to have aged. I'd guess a loss of a star per year up to 32, so the AI weights him as a 5 star player for its three-year plan, and doesn't expect him to last until he's 34, so it rates him as a 0 star player for its five-year plan.

A 26-year-old star winger. He's 7 stars, and not expected to do much aging, so he rates out as 7 stars for all three plans.

A 22-year-old fullback. He's currently 5 stars, but has 7 star potential. He rates as 5 stars for the one-year plan, maybe 6 stars for the three-year plan, and 7 stars for the five-year plan.

An 18-year-old striker. He's currently 3 stars, but has 7 star potential. He might rate out as 3 stars for now, 5 stars for the three-year plan, and 7 stars for the five-year plan.

Once you have that, make sure that each contract and each transfer fits a need, in one of the plans.

If the 30-year-old and the 18-year-old are my only two quality strikers, the team has an immediate need for a striker (one-year-plan: 7 star, 3 star) and a long-term need for a striker (five-year plan: 0 star, 7 star), plus clear need for a "cover" striker. It might choose to address those needs by picking up a quality 25-year-old if it can afford him (say, 6 stars for all three plans) and maybe a 28-year-old four-star for cover, or by picking up two players, another veteran and another promising youngster.

The decisions also inform contract negotiations, esp. contract renewals for young players - there's no sense letting quality players get loose on a Bosman if they have a place in your long-term plans.

Finally, the decision informs sales. So, let's say our hypothetical striker situation, our team picked up the 25-year-old and the 28-year-old. Now we have something like this:

30-year-old: 7 star, 5 star, 0 star

28-year-old: 4 star, 4 star, 2 star

25-year-old: 6 star, 6 star, 6 star

18-year-old: 3 star, 5 star, 7 star

Now the team fires its manager, and brings in a guy who only needs one striker. He wants to trim this group to "two strikers", but he's cagey enough to know that he needs two strikers in all three categories. The 28-year-old goes on the transfer list, because he's not the top-two striker in any category. The 30-year-old does not, but the new manager would not renew his contract past its second season, because by the three-year-plan, he is no longer necessary. He can leave on a Bosman then.

I think that replaces your "target average age" mechanic with something that achieves what you really want: teams which neither over-pay decrepit veterans, nor fail to retain their promising youngsters.

Amaroq's idea is a great starting point, and I think it could be improved by a couple of extra manager stats, so that different managers build their squads in different ways.

It's already been mentioned that someone like Wenger is more likely to buy youth, whereas Allardyce is more inclined to buy older experienced pros. Now if you had a "Youth Bias" manager stat, similar to how the human manager has a "Domestic Bias" stat, then this could perhaps modify where he looks to improve his team.

eg: For someone with 10 (out of the usual 20 range), then each of the 1 year, 3 year, 5 year options are equally important to him in selecting his future purchase. However, if he has a low "youth bias" (Allardyce) he is more likely to select someone that improves the 1 year plan (ie someone who is definitely ready for immediate first team action) - so maybe 60% bias towards 1 year, 30% to year 3, and just 10% to year 5. If he is the Wenger type (youth bias = 20) then he may look for someone that is a prospect for 5 years time. - 10% for current ability, 30% for 3 years, 60% for 5 years

If you also then combine this with giving the manager a "Preferred Squad Size" attribute then you could have some managers with a big squad, full of youngsters, or you could have a small, older team (or variations on this)

Further to this, I wonder if the expected number of games that the team has to play could be taken into consideration?

eg Man Utd / Chelsea etc would have their 38 league games, plus they would expect to have 8-13 Champions League games , plus they would expect at least one good domestic cup run - so perhaps another 8-10 games in the two cups - a total therefore of 55-60 games. With this huge fixture list, it would be sensible for the manager to assemble a bigger squad than a team like Bolton, who have their 38 league games, nothing in Europe, and would probably expect to have 5-6 total cup games - a total of 44 - so they could have a squad size of probably 25% less than Man Utd. Obviously this would then be affected by wage budgets etc

Amaroq, brilliant post, as usual, extremely thorough and well thought out. In my opinion, this would be a fantastic way to implement more competitive AI management and transfer dealings over the course of a longer-term save.

I'm surely not the first to have asked this, but why are you not working for SI?

Thanks, mate.

I'd love to work with the SI team on something. They have my resume, and I'm currently "Unattached", as the game would say. Unfortunately, I'm a bit of a generalist and they are large enough that they're looking for specialists; also, though I'm familiar with the language FM is written in, its been years since I used it professionally so I'd be rusty at first.

@ RobinGoodey: I thought that the AI manager profiles do include some purchasing influences, e.g., youth/veteran, foreign/domestic, etc? I'm not sure what those are exactly, or how they play, but certainly they should interact with what I'm suggesting if implemented.

A great framework and each manager can have different ranges for all your categories which would give them personality...Wenger would aim for lower average age etc...

why do you want to make an already difficult ai even better?

Making the AI more rational doesn't necessarily make the game harder. What SI and most fans desire is as much realism as possible.

AI may be difficult at game start, but we want that maintained after 3, 5, 10 and 20 seasons etc.

Absolutely. The way I see it is when we look at an AI squad in 3, 5, 10, 20 seasons, they should look like they do when we first load the game in terms of suitable amount of players for each position, mixture of youth and experience, realistic squad size, and healthy reserve and youth teams. Nice and neat looking squad screens.

Nebu/Golaxi: Having good, realistic AI is not going to make the game any harder. The reason this version is more difficult is probably because the game relies a little too much on minor tactical issues.

The problem with manager personalities and their buying trends is that we don’t know for sure if they will alter depending on the club they manage. Wenger loves bringing through the young players at Arsenal, but would he do the same if he moved to Real Madrid while Allardyce might have brought in veteran players on short contracts at the likes of Bolton but if given the Chelsea job would he do the same again?

Aside from that you’re probably limited with the knowledge of what managers’ traits are, especially in lower leagues where managers may deal a certain way in the transfer market simply because their hands are tied so they have to work that way.

The problem with manager personalities and their buying trends is that we don’t know for sure if they will alter depending on the club they manage. Wenger loves bringing through the young players at Arsenal, but would he do the same if he moved to Real Madrid while Allardyce might have brought in veteran players on short contracts at the likes of Bolton but if given the Chelsea job would he do the same again?

Aside from that you’re probably limited with the knowledge of what managers’ traits are, especially in lower leagues where managers may deal a certain way in the transfer market simply because their hands are tied so they have to work that way.

Thats true, but I would imagine quite hard to implement such intelligence. For now I think SI should put in a simple system that would allow all AI managers to build a squad with the common aims mentioned above, despite what club they are at or their preferred style. That for me would be a big step forward for consistency in long term games