Who gets the Tactical side of FM10?

By this i suppose i'm asking who plays the game properly?

What do i mean by this? well who tweaks their tactics game by game based on your opposition and also during the game as different scenario's play out?

I just want to get an idea just how many people play the game we are now advised to do so?

I wanted to play the game properly this year and have tried numerous times to put my own set together, to no avail albeit, but it also looks like there are very few others playing the game this way and if so how can that be when we are well aware that that is how the game should now be played?

Dont get me wrong, i think the game SHOULD be played in the above manner, making minor tweaks to your starting tactic based on your opposition, or when playing Home and Away, so on and so forth, but who actually knows what they are doing and why they are doing it?

Of course if you are playing as a "Big Club" you will probably have a lot more success that you might, even be putting it down to your tactical genius when the real reason may just be that you have a much larger scope for making tactical errors.

In an earlier poll in the T&T Forum a shocking 60% of FM'ers wanted a "Diablo" tactic just so they could get some enjoyment out of the game, this is not something i condone, but i can certainly see where they are coming from.

So i was wondering, has the way that SI have continued to make this game all about on the fly tactical decisions and tweaks actually gone against the views of most FM'ers, even if that is largely because of poor implementation and ME?

I don't tweak my tactics much during a game. If I'm a goal up with 15 mins to play, I will set my team's mentality to defensive, or attacking if I'm a goal down. That's the only changes I'll ever make, and to be honest, I haven't been too successful so far in any of my savegames.

I really hate that the game is now based almost entirely on tactics. FM09 was bad, but FM10 takes it to a new level. I have no interest in making lots of changes, etc. during a match because I like to play with commentary only and on the fastest speed.

I'd be happy to see an option introduced that allows the Ass Man to control all tactical changes during a match. There are options to allow the Ass Man to set opposition instructions, do team talk, attend press conferences, etc. so why not tactics?

I have a few tactics set up which I tend to do at the beginning of the game (normally 3 or possibly set at different levels of defensive through attacking play), then tweak at the start of each season if needed depending on who I've signed - that doesn't happen often, though - I am a bit of a Sven in that I tend to pretty much always try and set my teams up to play the same way (4-4-2) and try to look for replacements that can play in the roles I assign rather than changing tactics too much to suit players (i.e. I use wingers who can cross and dribble - if a wide player can't do that I won't sign him, no matter what my scouts think).

I very very rarely change tactics in a match - normally pick whichever one I think is most appropriate at the start of the game and play it. I've noticed that I'm weaker against some opposition tactics than others, though (weak down the flanks against 4-5-1) so I'll try and develop a tactic that defends against that if I see a need - but I only tend to analyse that over the course of a season, I believe it's better to let teams settle.

I'll now wait for Paul C to come and laugh at my bizarre mix of randomness and superstition. All I can say is, it works for me...

Personally I stick to the same tactic if its working, until it stops working. If I feel teams have "caught on" then I change them. For example last night I was 5-0 to Man Utd after 30 mins. I thought "They've caught on".

Quick thinking is the key to good management after all, doesn't take me long to recognise the signs!

I've got some preset systems set up.....but I tweak the instructions to suit the 11 who're playing. Don't really use the the ass man suggestions very often, I mainly just look at the formation of the opposition. Of course, if I'm being mullered (well done Mick), I'll switch systems. Must admit, I've never been clever enough to create one "domination" tactic.

I've got four formations.

4-4-2, 4-1-4-1, 4-1-2-1-2 and 3-4-3

They all serve different purposes and are effective against different AI formations, so I pre-scout them and see what they use and adapt accordingly.

I also make sure I have the players on the bench to change to any of the other 3 in a moment's notice. This is the first FM I've ever had more than one tactic.

I get the tactical side but I can't say I agree with the concept how AI plays and how all teams playing the same Strategy will look more or less the same, no metter the quality of the team or league specifics. hopefully this will improve a lot in near future.

I play (not playing atm) with wizard setup.

I enjoy the game alot because I watch 90% of my matches in full and change my tactics according to the situation of the match. I don't stick with one tactics because I feel this game requires you to watch your matches in full if you want to get what you want. I also understand the importance of tactics in football and fully aware that FM is a real life simulation of the wonderful game, so I don't have any problem with the match engine or the game as some kids over here make out to be. Yes the game has some flaws but nothing major. I appreciate SI for their hard work in creating this beautiful real life simulation and giving all of us unlimited hours of entertainment.

Formation tends to remain the same but i change my tactics depending on the opposition. Just hammered West Ham (excuse the pun) after completely changing my tactical outlook, with a little help from my backroom staff.

I have one solid base tactic. I then change OIs. Rather than change tactics, I prefer to change the player to suit the opponent, but I will make minor adjustments. During the match, I will commit less players forward if we are hanging on.

My tactic works well against sides who are lacking in pace. I tend to get a lot of draws against other sides, even though it's an attacking tactic. I have only lost 2 out of 16 or so matches.

Depends who I'm in charge of.

Currently Managing Villa.

I don't often change formation, it is more individual player roles, I mainly play an assymetric 4-5-1 at the moment, and the main change I make is my full backs & my defensive midfielder. My DM will be an Anchorman against "Bigger" Teams and some away games, but against "Smaller" Teams and most home games then he'll be a deep lying playmaker. Then the full backs get set to Defend playing away and Support/Attack when playing at home depending on the opposition.

I use the touchline shouts throughout every match, without fail. IMO they've been one of the best additions to the game this year.

The only change I make to my starting formation is if I'm playing a lower league club in the cup that I should be hammering or if I'm chasing goals in a second leg, I'll often change to a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3 and apply pressure from the off.

One tactic, come hell or high water. The game's slow enough as it is (I'm more interested in building teams/watching player development) so the last thing I'll do is spend even more time tinkering with my squad in-game. This is the first year that my squad's actually struggled, as my 4-4-2 formation has served me well since 07.

I play have different formations my main one 4-3-1-2 as well as 4-3-3(mourinho style), 4-2-3-1 and 4-2-2-2 I have at least 3 different varieties of each of these formations and Iam looking to perfect a 4-4-2 but haven't managed it quite yet. This for me is how the game should be played, players should be constructing many different formations for many different scenarios and yes should have a prefered one but at the very least you should have a couple of different varieties of your favourite formation that are built to cope with different situations. I also reguarlarly tinker with tactics if I feel they are not working.

As for the diablo tactic, sometimes I dispair about the future of FM as a game when I hear things like this. What possible pleasure could somebody derive from a game where their only responsibility was to move players into position on a grid and then sit back on watch as they beat everybody? It just ridiculous!!! Football manager for me is 90% cerebral its a game of tactical as well as organisational thinking and thats why i love it. Yes it sometimes has its tactical faults, and there are times when it feels unfair but this only serves to make the times when you finally fine your tactical rhythm and triumph all the more sweet.

I put myself in the position of a real life manager and change my approach based on how I feel they would cope with whatever situation I am in. It works very well for me.

I have used my 4-5-1 on my Arsenal save since i first started and i am now about to start my first match of the 2013/14 season and i have been quite succesful this way. I have managed to win the Prem twice, Comunity Shield twice, Euro Cup once, Champions League once and also won the Super Cup. I have kept the same team bar maybe 1 or 2 players coming into my first team or on my bench for the last 2 seasons and am reaping the rewards as the only signings i was making were promising youngsters who a couple r now rdy to make my bench and push for a starting place. Doing it like this i have had my fair share of upsets but i certainly can now start to see the benifits.

I thought the poll would be a more yes/no answer, a little misleading when you look at the options don't ya think...?

"I'd be happy to see an option introduced that allows the Ass Man to control all tactical changes during a match"

What?!? You may as well just buy players in the transfer windows, and then go on holiday for the rest of the time. You could call your game "Chief Scout 2010".

As for the diablo tactic, sometimes I dispair about the future of FM as a game when I hear things like this. What possible pleasure could somebody derive from a game where their only responsibility was to move players into position on a grid and then sit back on watch as they beat everybody? It just ridiculous!!! Football manager for me is 90% cerebral its a game of tactical as well as organisational thinking and thats why i love it. Yes it sometimes has its tactical faults, and there are times when it feels unfair but this only serves to make the times when you finally fine your tactical rhythm and triumph all the more sweet.

Ahhhh, but look at it in another context, lets say that you were playing as Man Utd and everytime you started the game you got sacked because you did'nt know what you were doing, maybe you had read TT&F and this had not helped and you were so frustrated that you would simply have to stop playing and put the game back on the shelf, at this point even if it was only to lessen your frustration somewhat, would you not fire up the old Diablo tactic and at least go out in a blaze of glory?

Personally i have never wanted a Diablo, but if the game came with much more information relating to setting up tactics and ideas of how to tweak accordingly, depending on your opposition or how a match is playing out then i would never need one.

I notice a lot of the time that those people who have little complaint with the game(especially this whole defending debacle) tend to play as a "Big Club" at least in whatever division/league they have started in and as such it is less demanding on their managerial skills and much more forgiving to any tactical errors that they make.

I've got five tactics. One I use at home when I'm clear favourites, one I use away, or at home if I'm slight favourites, a balanced where the odds are tight, a counter attacking tactic if the opposition are favourites and a defensive for when I'm protecting a lead. The only time I ever tweak outside of a match is if there's a permanent change I want to. During a match I will tweak, but in general I will still just change to one of my custom made tactics unless I feel I need something a little different. This style of management has brought me success at both the top and the bottom of the ladder.

I thought the poll would be a more yes/no answer, a little misleading when you look at the options don't ya think...?

Was not trying to mislead anyone LL, those of us who play using just a single tactic are by wwfan's words "not playing the game as it is meant to be played" therefore even if we had created a single tactic that won every game the answer would still have to be no.

If that is not good enough for you just look at how many people are still trying/playing with just a single tactic and look at all the tactic releases in the T&T Forum, 99% of these tactics are singular, does this not cause concern that so many people are still having to play the game in this fashion despite the whole new Tactic Creator feature?

I used to use 1 single tactic (442) until injuries forced a re-think to a 4-1-2-2-1 (or 433 if you like). What i found is that the 442 works against teams i should be beating, and the other works well against bigger teams or away from home. Now i stick to rotating them as it fits, whilst using the "quick tactics" to change things (defend, attack, counter etc) depending on how the game is going.

Was not trying to mislead anyone LL, those of us who play using just a single tactic are by wwfan's words "not playing the game as it is meant to be played" therefore even if we had created a single tactic that won every game the answer would still have to be no.

If that is not good enough for you just look at how many people are still trying/playing with just a single tactic and look at all the tactic releases in the T&T Forum, 99% of these tactics are singular, does this not cause concern that so many people are still having to play the game in this fashion despite the whole new Tactic Creator feature?

Well, we all know that you have some 'bone to pick' with wwfan which no one has really understood at all. It is kind of like blaming the guy at the ticket counter for the Airlines Company's policies (that apparently have caused you to have a miserable flight)...

But to get back on point wouldn't it have given a more thorough perception if you wrote:

No, so I use one tactic

Partially, I have a basic home and away with a sus and a get a goal

Yes, I do what is required

It might have made the thread title a little more coherent with the poll questions...

For the first time in a few years, I actually 'get it' tactically. I'm currently flying with Liverpool. Beat Man Utd 3-2 at OT last night

Top of the League, Top of my Champions League group, highest scorers, best defence etc.....

I'm not boasting, I'm just saying that my current Liverpool save is the mirror opposite of my last Liverpool save on FM09.

Well, we all know that you have some 'bone to pick' with wwfan which no one has really understood at all. It is kind of like blaming the guy at the ticket counter for the Airlines Company's policies (that apparently have caused you to have a miserable flight)...

But to get back on point wouldn't it have given a more thorough perception if you wrote:

No, so I use one tactic

Partially, I have a basic home and away with a sus and a get a goal

Yes, I do what is required

It might have made the thread title a little more coherent with the poll questions...

Actually LL i still consider Rich to be a friend of mine although i dont know if he would think the same.

I do have a beef with Rich though yes, he has had a lot to do with recent ME's especially this years and i still dont believe that there is enough information that explains how/why/when to make tactic changes and again things like this poll and the "Diablo" poll tends to suggest that FM is only pandering to around 50% of its customers.

Actually LL i still consider Rich to be a friend of mine although i dont know if he would think the same.

I do have a beef with Rich though yes, he has had a lot to do with recent ME's especially this years and i still dont believe that there is enough information that explains how/why/when to make tactic changes and again things like this poll and the "Diablo" poll tends to suggest that FM is only pandering to around 50% of its customers.

Are you seriously blaming him for the ME? You got to be joking me, man...

He only tried to help and see where it got the guy. There are only two people who really know the ME and none of them are wwfan. Have you been snacking on the local mushrooms?... Geez man, take a break... take a kit-kat...

You've been more frustrating than normal, recently, Garry, but as always, hidden underneath your polemic, you have valid points. I agree there is a lack of coherent in-game feedback as to why things are/aren't working. I also agree that there is not enough help regarding tactical structure and dynamism.

However, those wanting a Diablo simply want a win button, which is hardly the point of any game. It's an invalid statistic, with no relevance for development. I am interested in the 25% difference between this poll and the one in the tactics forum though. If only 20% or so believe real life managers only employ one tactic, how come 45% play like this? That type of gap is an interesting one, as it suggests something lacking in the game inhibits 25% of players from playing dynamically.

I have a pre-determined playing style that is set in my tactics screen, then I will usually alter this (very slightly) at the pre-match tactics screen depending on the opposition. I'll also add in OI's depending on the circumstances/opposition players.

You've been more frustrating than normal, recently, Garry, but as always, hidden underneath your polemic, you have valid points. I agree there is a lack of coherent in-game feedback as to why things are/aren't working. I also agree that there is not enough help regarding tactical structure and dynamism.

However, those wanting a Diablo simply want a win button, which is hardly the point of any game. It's an invalid statistic, with no relevance for development. I am interested in the 25% difference between this poll and the one in the tactics forum though. If only 20% or so believe real life managers only employ one tactic, how come 45% play like this? That type of gap is an interesting one, as it suggests something lacking in the game inhibits 25% of players from playing dynamically.

The poll should have been clearer as what the 'intention' was, there could be a little confusion regarding the title thread and the poll itself as of now. I personally thought it was a different type of poll untill I put 2 and 2 together...

One tactic, come hell or high water. The game's slow enough as it is (I'm more interested in building teams/watching player development) so the last thing I'll do is spend even more time tinkering with my squad in-game.

Same here. I've always designed one balanced solid tactic then looked for success by signing better players and developing the ones I have. This is usually achieved by playing a large number of seasons so I don't want to spend ages on the tactical side every game.

I try to fit my tactic according to the strengths of the team i have available. For example at Inter i played 4 3 1 2, while at Notts Co i play 4 1 3 2, i also tend to fit their individual assignments according to each player's strengths. I also tweak my tactics a little every match, according to if i expect a hard/easy open/closed game by the opposition (i use my wingers and passing into space when playing strong opposition away frmo home) while i play short-pass to feet-work to box against smaller teams at home.

I seem to have great success with the tactics, as despite being expected to be 7th on League 1 and 12th on Championship with Notts Co, i have gone on to be champions in all League 2, League 1 and Championship with 333 points in total.

You've been more frustrating than normal, recently, Garry, but as always, hidden underneath your polemic, you have valid points. I agree there is a lack of coherent in-game feedback as to why things are/aren't working. I also agree that there is not enough help regarding tactical structure and dynamism.

However, those wanting a Diablo simply want a win button, which is hardly the point of any game. It's an invalid statistic, with no relevance for development. I am interested in the 25% difference between this poll and the one in the tactics forum though. If only 20% or so believe real life managers only employ one tactic, how come 45% play like this? That type of gap is an interesting one, as it suggests something lacking in the game inhibits 25% of players from playing dynamically.

Frustrating, i have hardly posted recently? :confused:

I am glad you realise the lack of coherent feedback and what have you, but what makes it even harder to understand is the ME.

Maybe its time you could marry up the ME issues with tactical issues? like "GK stands still with ball until opposing striker takes it off his foot and scores = Drop d-line a few notches

Or "Defender makes no attempt to close down striker" = Instruct team to play through the middle.

Yes i was being silly but the poor ME just compounds the tactical issues in the game, okay i may well have made a tactical error but how is showing me yet another missed inteception going to give me a clue how to fix it?

I consider myself a relatively intelligent person and i have a wide footballing knowledge, playing the game in one form or another 4 times a week and yet all the TT&F and other tactical advice means absolutely nothing to me whatsoever.

LL - It seems like you are the only one with an issue regarding the poll, so maybe let that one lie petal eh?

LL - It seems like you are the only one with an issue regarding the poll, so maybe let that one lie petal eh?

Fair enough, but let's make a pact: I understand the poll and you stop blaming the wrong guy for the ME, eh? What do you say, bury the hatchet?

Fair enough, but let's make a pact: I understand the poll and you stop blaming the wrong guy for the ME, eh? What do you say, bury the hatchet?

Sounds fair, although i dont know who else to blame, i thought the ME this year was Rich's baby?

Sounds fair, although i dont know who else to blame, i thought the ME this year was Rich's baby?

Forgive me, but suggesting the Rich is responsable for the ME is in the top two most stupid accusations ever to hit the forums. Fair enough you got some points, but again there are others that share this view of not understanding how the game mechansim works so that people can't get grips with the game (myself included), but blaming the wrong person will get us nowhere. But it sounds like we have a deal, then...

Forgive me, but suggesting the Rich is responsable for the ME is in the top two most stupid accusations ever to hit the forums. Fair enough you got some points, but again there are others that share this view of understanding how the game mechansim works so that people can get grips with the game (myself included), but blaming the wrong person will get us nowhere. But it sounds like we have a deal, then...

So you have an understanding of the game mechanism? any chance you could help me do the same, trusting that you have the time/inclination of course?

Truth is if i was "in the know" when it came to FM i would spend a lot of my time helping other FM'ers to understand the game, walking them through it step by step if necessary?

So you have an understanding of the game mechanism? any chance you could help me do the same, trusting that you have the time/inclination of course?

Truth is if i was "in the know" when it came to FM i would spend a lot of my time helping other FM'ers to understand the game, walking them through it step by step if necessary?

I can see I didn't really make sense of the understanding part, sorry for that. What I actually meant is the "there is a lack of understanding of the ME" and I have the same ideology, so we are in the same boat. I mucked it up, I can see that clearly...

I can see I didn't really make sense of the understanding part, sorry for that. What I actually meant is the "there is a lack of understanding of the ME" and I have the same ideology, so we are in the same boat. I mucked it up, I can read clearly...

I dont see why we are arguing then?

My main gripe albeit a somewhat selfish one if truth be known, is that so few FM'ers really understand the tactical side of the game, i would even suggest that if you take away those playing primarily as "Big Clubs" the figure would drop again dramatically, because the game is obviously more sympathetic to teams with the best players.

You just have to look at recent stats from polls to know this is the case so why is there not more information relayed to FM'ers to help them understand the tactical side of the game?

It is often been regarded as "spoon feeding" and if only a small percentage of FM'ers were struggling i'd agree, but half the people in the poll and on these Forums alone are still trying to get by with just a single tactic, which to me is a clear indication that there is still nowhere near enough info regarding playing this game in the manner that it is meant to be played, even Rich has agreed with this part.

I generally keep the same tactic unless i'm playing one of the 'big teams' and then i'll change it to be more defensive. Throughout the match i do make a lot of basic changes to my playing style ie, control to contain if winning and under pressure, vice versa i'll go more attacking if we're losing but nothing too drastic.

I'm a big supporter of 4-4-2, so I nearly always stick with that. Sometimes I change to 4-5-1 with wingers or 4-4-1-1, but this is usually only for individual matches.

Maybe I don't change enough, I'm not sure. I definitely don't have a special tactic for away games although I might make one now.

You need to avoid the unsubstantiated hypotheses, Garry.

Is there a frustrated section of forum users who can't get to grips with tactics/the ME? Most definitely, yes.

Would this number be greater if less people played with 'Big Clubs'? Hypothetical opinion with no evidence.

Does this frustration spread across all FM players, including those who don't regularly frequent these forums and are thus not confronted with positive and negative biases and emotional opinion about the ME/AI/tactical interface? Unknown.

Stick to cold, hard debate, using only substantiated facts, and you'll get a much more positive response.

i use 2 tactics, 1 for my '1st team' and 1 for my '2nd team'. as a general rule my 1st play weekends n 2nd play during the week. I am VERY succesful with this. However it's pointless on fm2010 at the moment as the match engines crap.

Since the wizard is there I decided to change my approach this year. I don't make any sets and never fine tune the presets. On the team level I only ever change the strategy and closing down settings. Depending on the type of game and which players I have available I sometimes change roles for some positions. Dutys are fixed. During the game I use the TIs if I deem it necessary. Personally I find that this gives me the ability to tailor my tactics in a very short time before each game, something that wasn't really a viable option before IMO.

So far this approach has served me really well. TBF it didn't at first, but after some reasearch into the more theoretical side of football I found a few details that was really ruining my tactics. I am not crushing everything before me exactly, but by my standards I am doing just fine.

As for the diablo poll, seriously what could you possibly expect from asking ppl in the tactics forum? That is a very specific category of people playing this game and I would have been very surprised if the result had been the other way around.

Now I understand that there is a great variety in terms of what people want and expect from this game, but speaking for myself even the possibility of having a press-space-to-win tactic is a failure and not what I want from this series. TBH I really don't see how it would be possible to create a game that would be perfect for everyone. Personally I like the direction the game is taking. It certainly isn't perfect, it never could be, but AFAIC it is getting better and better.

Edit:

One thing that I definately agree with is that there are way to many details/factors in the game that are very poorly documented.

I dont see why we are arguing then?

We are not arguing, we are having an open discussion on a forum. If you read the thread "Tactic Wizard, do we really need it?" then we had a similar discussion, but I think it is a little harsh to put all the responsability on wwfan's shoulders. SI is a huge Organisation and there are many elements within that we don't fully understand 'being on the outside' (as most of us are). Rich is a younger lad that is comming up through the ranks and good luck to him, but there is a whole other 'machine' at work within this Complex Organisation and we have to do things the right way. I will sign a paper stating that we are in the dark on the issue of the ME mechanism, but I think that they do get the point or comming around to it. The only problem right now is that Computer Programmers speak a language us mortals simply don't understand, that has to of course be addressed. I can't see why that the 'mechanics' in the ME have to be a secret but it seems this is how SI feel about it right now apparently. But I'm up for changing their mind...

Rich is a younger lad that is coming up through the ranks

I'm older than Ov!!!! But younger than Paul And I don't work for SI. But apart from that, pretty accurate

I don't adjust to my opposition they try to adapt to me, I only change a little the width, tempo, passing etc ... luckily I win most matches.

I'm older than Ov!!!! But younger than Paul And I don't work for SI. But apart from that, pretty accurate

When you are comming through the ranks you are always considered 'younger' (thats why I didn't just say: young)...

I use one tactic, but change team instructions extensively ingame and before match which works fine. I also change player instructions when I substitute a completely different type of player (e. g. fast striker <-> target man). I use the advanced settings.

You need to avoid the unsubstantiated hypotheses, Garry.

Is there a frustrated section of forum users who can't get to grips with tactics/the ME? Most definitely, yes.

Would this number be greater if less people played with 'Big Clubs'? Hypothetical opinion with no evidence.

Does this frustration spread across all FM players, including those who don't regularly frequent these forums and are thus not confronted with positive and negative biases and emotional opinion about the ME/AI/tactical interface? Unknown.

Stick to cold, hard debate, using only substantiated facts, and you'll get a much more positive response.

I hear you mate i really do, but i have my own personal experiences and those of fellow FM'ers that would suggest i was right on the money.

My own refer to personal references from a substantially large pool of friends and/or family that have completely given up on FM in recent releases due to the very same issues that i have raised here in the Forums so i cannot discount it so easily, although i accept that there are many that will.

Its pretty clear here on the Forums that this game is no longer about creating a reasonable tactic and improving your team year after year with some smart buys and managing to start challenging for honours, but for non Forum users is this widely known? for years CM/FM was played in such a fashion and it was accepted, this was how to play the game. I for one would have appreciated and accepted the "new" way as an improvement, but the complete lack of information regarding getting to grips with this new tactical structure has made the game worse rather than better.

I personally don't use the wizard/creator because I want to be more precise with settings, as I tend to even take things like pre-match odds, formations, pitch sizes (at times) and weather into consideration. I could use the wizard but the ammount of 'untweaking' first isn't worth the time as I feel I could tweak from the base settings a lot quicker. Rarely does it take me more than 5 minutes to make the first tactic and I usually end up with around 5 different ones for that game, but since they all have a similar base then the others only take a fraction of the time as I don't even waste time assigning roles. I have a global strategy that does okay in the game and I don't want to spend too much time tweaking every player as I feel it can be totally unecessary, there might be a few personal tweaks for certain players but that is far as it goes. I will also explore the option of changing formation (for example from 4-4-2 to a 4-3-3) just to change things for fun and no other reason. Once you get the starting tactic right then there is not much I feel I need to change during the course of the match (nothing drastic for sure), except for a few late 'tweaks' that could tip the balance if need be...

We are not arguing, we are having an open discussion on a forum. If you read the thread "Tactic Wizard, do we really need it?" then we had a similar discussion, but I think it is a little harsh to put all the responsability on wwfan's shoulders. SI is a huge Organisation and there are many elements within that we don't fully understand 'being on the outside' (as most of us are). Rich is a younger lad that is comming up through the ranks and good luck to him, but there is a whole other 'machine' at work within this Complex Organisation and we have to do things the right way. I will sign a paper stating that we are in the dark on the issue of the ME mechanism, but I think that they do get the point or comming around to it. The only problem right now is that Computer Programmers speak a language us mortals simply don't understand, that has to of course be addressed. I can't see why that the 'mechanics' in the ME have to be a secret but it seems this is how SI feel about it right now apparently. But I'm up for changing their mind...

Sorry, i am so used to just arguing.

As it goes the development of the game has not ran paralell to the development of the info that goes with it. We are still shortchanged enough that it is still believed to be viable to continue to play the game using just a single tactic because in many cases it still is, whilst the lack of information of how/why/when to make changes is still hidden under layers of code and poor ME representation.