It's time for a leap of faith

The turn of a decade is usually followed by dreams and new hopes and we, FM players, are all dreaming and expecting wonderful things. I think there is a real chance for our favourite game.

I always believed that this game takes tactics too seriously. In essence, this game is only tactics' tweaking. Nothing much else. It still amazes me that there are, for example, 20 different settings on how much should a player close down. Or, 20 different levels of time wasting?! Fair enough, they have tried to simplify but just for the player. The machine remains as big and complicated.

I've read numerous angry posts defending realism when someone dares to ask if he could repeat a game, I've read experts coming up with important conclusions after reading two libraries of statistical jiberish, but we have all failed to observe the most important thing: There is too much concentration in tactics. Unrealisticaly much. Real life football management is a bit about tactics and a lot about other things. If the game continues to chanel its energy to tactics it will become less and less realistic and at the end it will have no connection to reality but the players' names and attributes.

What is football management about? What distinguishes a succesful manager? This is what SI must concentrate upon now, take a leap of faith, take our game to the next level and trully create something legendary.

A lot of work needs to be done on personal relationships between all the people working for a team (the manager, staff, players). Revolutionary ways have to be discovered to simulate those relationships and how they define a team.

A lot of work and real out of the box thinking needs to be done so that the game can capture the personality and managerial skills of the manager and how they form the culture of the team.

I know this post will shock many people, who will deliberately shut their eyes and try not to think of those things ever again. Most of the people who know and love football will know immediately what I am talking about (tactics is a very small part of management). I am counting on the really forward thinkers of SI. On those who want to take a chance and dare create a "simulation" rather than a "game".

Please, SI, will you attempt to start a revolution?

I agree that work needs to be done on more than just tactics. There is a whole media side of FM that could do with work, but I don't agree with you that football management is a bit about tactics and a lot about other things.

I'd be pretty sure that the day to day routine of a football manager is working on tactics, be that in his office watching past teams play, with his players watching old matches, training with his players or devising a tactical approach to the next game.

Yes, SI need to flesh out other aspects of their game, but not in exchange for the tactical side of things. I think you are wrong and I think it would be a bad thing for SI to start a revolution to steer the game away from tactics and tactical approaches.

You're talking about " personal relationships between all the people working for a team (the manager, staff, players)". What do you mean with it exactly?

I think I DO know what you're talking about though. And I don't see it happening in a decent way without real AI.

Not a bad idea and a good post.

The tactics are in my opinon a little too detailed and by comparison the interaction options are Stone Age, especially the Press Conferences as there are only about 7 oft repeated questions / statements and variations on the same themes.

About the press conferences. I don't see how you can NOT have repeated questions.

Do the changes to the tactical side introduced in FM10 not constitute a bit of a revolution?

I agree that work needs to be done on more than just tactics. There is a whole media side of FM that could do with work, but I don't agree with you that football management is a bit about tactics and a lot about other things.

I'd be pretty sure that the day to day routine of a football manager is working on tactics, be that in his office watching past teams play, with his players watching old matches, training with his players or devising a tactical approach to the next game.

Yes, SI need to flesh out other aspects of their game, but not in exchange for the tactical side of things. I think you are wrong and I think it would be a bad thing for SI to start a revolution to steer the game away from tactics and tactical approaches.

Watching old games alone and taking notes or with the players and pointing out things is something they definately do. Also, I agree, they do spend time with the players during training and they do make plans about the next opponent. The game only simulates a couple of things from the above. Furthermore there are things like the 20 different positions of the creative freedom slider, for example, that simply do not make sense. And despite having all those buttons and sliders you cannot give simple instructions to your players or train them to execute certain routines, certain ways of defending and attacking.

The point though is that the whole tactics system takes up an enormous amount of time during the game, withou baring resemblance to reality. It is not like that in real life. I mean you do not click a player from closing down 18 to closing down 17 and evaluate what happens.

But more importantly, there are is no management in Football Management. I mean real situation management (I'm not sure how many of you have managed any outfit to understand what I am talking about, it is hard to explain and even harder to simulate, thus the "leap of faith")

You're talking about " personal relationships between all the people working for a team (the manager, staff, players)". What do you mean with it exactly?

I think I DO know what you're talking about though. And I don't see it happening in a decent way without real AI.

Real AI. That's the word!

Do the changes to the tactical side introduced in FM10 not constitute a bit of a revolution?

They are a good step towards making the old heavy slider system look a bit more like football. If this gets even more real and is complimented by a lot of work on management, then we're talking...

Far more in-depth analysis from scouts/assistant manager. Not just "Chelsea haven't scored many goals in between 76th-90th minute.."

etc..

more like "Chelsea have used a 4-5-1 system more regularly with Joe Cole playing as the most advanced midfielder, he likes to find pockets of space"

"the holding midfielder usually looks to get on the ball as much as possible, while the other midfielder looks to break from midfield to support forwards"

"The striker likes to drop deep to recieve the ball OR..the striker likes to run the channels"

"both their wingers enjoy staying right out wide and keeping their width.."

"this team usually play a high line"

Things like this, this is information managers will recieve before everygame, along with player monitors fitness levels, distance covered...or things like "Assistant manager informs you, Player A's work rate drops considerably as a game goes on.."

then it's upto you what you do with that information.

That is indeed some good input and has to do with the poorly working scouting system. We all know that SI has introduced many things to make the game feel more real but they've done it half heartedly, without putting effort. Do you know why? Because there is a thing called tactics tweaking that takes up the majority of their time. This is the leap of faith I am talking about. Simplify tactics, work a lot less on sliders and understand real life football management more.

The issue begins because the starting point is wrong: There is a widespread belief that how a team performs can only be explained by its tactics (hence the "it's your tactics" moto we constantly hear). This belief is very, very wrong and it leads to complete distortion of football.

The reason that there is so much focus on tactics is simple: It is extremely difficult to realise, let alone simulate in a computer program, what are those things that define good or bad management. The solution was to forget about that and just explain everything through the tactics prism.

I repeat: Tactics cannot explain why a team is succesful and why not. Tactics is a tiny thing of a team's performance. I am sure seasoned football fans know that. Unfortunately, this game is attempting to simulate football based almost exclusively on tactics. The whole concept is wrong. I will give one example: some engine developer in some other thread I was reading was saying that ManU, Arsenal and Chelsea have completely different ways of unlocking stubborn defences (or something like that). He then explained those differences by using tactical terms. This explanation is partly true. Of course, the three teams use different tactics. Those tactics are set by the manager and are worked in training etc. Those tactics have nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with the level of detail of sliding sliders we find in FM. In any case after the tactic is set, the real management begins. And, like I said, it has to do with personalities. ManU's way reflects its manager's character, Arsenal's the same. I can't believe for example, that Ferguson is still getting the best out of Giggs by tweaking his creative freedom one notch to the right. Yes Giggs play differently now that he is older, but his will to carry on, his motivation and endless hunger for the game has to do with his relationship with his manager and the club and this is something the game cannot at this point simulate. There are millions of examples of succeses or failures that have nothing to do with tactics, in the real world.

To take this leap of faith, SI needs a cultural change. They need to forget the "it's all about tactics" moto and try to replicate real life football management. It is difficult, I know (wwfan has to be fired hahaha), but they can do it. We need this new and brilliant game.

Watching old games alone and taking notes or with the players and pointing out things is something they definately do. Also, I agree, they do spend time with the players during training and they do make plans about the next opponent. The game only simulates a couple of things from the above. Furthermore there are things like the 20 different positions of the creative freedom slider, for example, that simply do not make sense. And despite having all those buttons and sliders you cannot give simple instructions to your players or train them to execute certain routines, certain ways of defending and attacking.

The point though is that the whole tactics system takes up an enormous amount of time during the game, withou baring resemblance to reality. It is not like that in real life. I mean you do not click a player from closing down 18 to closing down 17 and evaluate what happens.

But more importantly, there are is no management in Football Management. I mean real situation management (I'm not sure how many of you have managed any outfit to understand what I am talking about, it is hard to explain and even harder to simulate, thus the "leap of faith")

I always said this when people were complaining about the sliders before the tactical redo. You have to have sliders of some sort. It is merely a graphical representation of telling your players how you want them to play. In any case you don't really need to fiddle with them all that much any more. Using the new tactics wizard devises a solid tactic to start with and then you can tweak as much as you need. I think that I always know what I'm asking the team to do and it never takes me an age.

As for player management, well it's there. I signed a Lithuanian player in my first season and he began to play badly and it seemed to come down to him being homesick. I had a choice then, send him home for a while or get in another Lithuanian to help him settle. I got in another Lithuanian and the guy is on fire now.

I also have the players that are on the verge of the team, or not able to force their way in. I have a choice of keeping them happy or sticking them in the reserves. Sooner or later they come to me and ask questions. I admit that interaction is limited but it is there.

The new backroom meetings are great and has opened up a whole new world of interacting with players and staff. Never before have I used so many of the train in a certain move options.

You can also extensively manage the youth coming through your team if you so wish.

As I said, I agree that the player management side of FM could do with a lift but the tactical side needs to remain in charge from where I am sitting. Football is a tactical game after all.

What else could you really do to change the tactical approach that SI have devised too? There has been a major tactical redesign for FM10 because people began to complain constantly about the sliders. The sliders are still in because they need to be there. They are now hidden by an excellent tactics wizard.

If you think that things need to change, then give SI some ideas. Just coming along and saying that the management approach of the game needs to be worked on and that SI need to take a leap of faith is a little weak. At least think of something.

Personally I'd say we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think you are wrong. Obviously improvements to the man-management side of FM would be welcomed but not at the expense of FMs tactical depth, and certainly not in conjunction with a lessening of the depth of the game tactically. More not less. All around.

Does this come down to a difficulty issue? Is the whole reasoning for this thread because the tactics are too difficult to understand? I don't agree.

That's what the tactics wizard is for, surely.

I always said this when people were complaining about the sliders before the tactical redo. You have to have sliders of some sort. It is merely a graphical representation of telling your players how you want them to play. In any case you don't really need to fiddle with them all that much any more. Using the new tactics wizard devises a solid tactic to start with and then you can tweak as much as you need. I think that I always know what I'm asking the team to do and it never takes me an age.

As for player management, well it's there. I signed a Lithuanian player in my first season and he began to play badly and it seemed to come down to him being homesick. I had a choice then, send him home for a while or get in another Lithuanian to help him settle. I got in another Lithuanian and the guy is on fire now.

I also have the players that are on the verge of the team, or not able to force their way in. I have a choice of keeping them happy or sticking them in the reserves. Sooner or later they come to me and ask questions. I admit that interaction is limited but it is there.

The new backroom meetings are great and has opened up a whole new world of interacting with players and staff. Never before have I used so many of the train in a certain move options.

You can also extensively manage the youth coming through your team if you so wish.

As I said, I agree that the player management side of FM could do with a lift but the tactical side needs to remain in charge from where I am sitting. Football is a tactical game after all.

What else could you really do to change the tactical approach that SI have devised too? There has been a major tactical redesign for FM10 because people began to complain constantly about the sliders. The sliders are still in because they need to be there. They are now hidden by an excellent tactics wizard.

If you think that things need to change, then give SI some ideas. Just coming along and saying that the management approach of the game needs to be worked on and that SI need to take a leap of faith is a little weak. At least think of something.

Personally I'd say we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think you are wrong. Obviously improvements to the man-management side of FM would be welcomed but not at the expense of FMs tactical depth, and certainly not in conjunction with a lessening of the depth of the game tactically. More not less. All around.

I think that's fair enough...

In my honest opion SI need to start releasing FM every two years now. The game has so much more to it than it used to, so updating it yearly seems to be too much for them. FM09 was pretty much unplayable for me, I gave up on it. FM10 is fantastic but was released with some big issues ( some players couldnt even get it to work ) mainly with regens and now the patched 'super keepers'.

S.I could just release updates for the transfer windows to update the squads and release a bug free game every 2 years......I would quite happily pay a small fee for such updates if it meant getting a game that doesnt require patching every 3 months to fix huge issues with it, causing players to pretty much lose months of play in saves because you need to re-do tactics to make them work with a new patch.....

In my honest opion SI need to start releasing FM every two years now. The game has so much more to it than it used to, so updating it yearly seems to be too much for them. FM09 was pretty much unplayable for me, I gave up on it. FM10 is fantastic but was released with some big issues ( some players couldnt even get it to work ) mainly with regens and now the patched 'super keepers'.

S.I could just release updates for the transfer windows to update the squads and release a bug free game every 2 years......I would quite happily pay a small fee for such updates if it meant getting a game that doesnt require patching every 3 months to fix huge issues with it, causing players to pretty much lose months of play in saves because you need to re-do tactics to make them work with a new patch.....

I think there is definitely some argument for the every 2 years idea, but the idea of 'superkeepers' pops up every year. People have to look beyond the obvious inclination to call the bug 'superkeepers' and try and understand the bug better.

Besides, releasing a game every two years instead of every one would not remove the occurance of bugs. More time would just be spent making a bigger game and the same amount of time, proportionally testing.

I suspect the main opposition to releasing every two years would be the money providers.

The more I think about it the more inclined I am to accept a release every year that is an improvement over the previous year's. Whatever you say, you can not argue that the game has not improved.

I think there is definitely some argument for the every 2 years idea, but the idea of 'superkeepers' pops up every year. People have to look beyond the obvious inclination to call the bug 'superkeepers' and try and understand the bug better.

Besides, releasing a game every two years instead of every one would not remove the occurance of bugs. More time would just be spent making a bigger game and the same amount of time, proportionally testing.

I suspect the main opposition to releasing every two years would be the money providers.

The more I think about it the more inclined I am to accept a release every year that is an improvement over the previous year's. Whatever you say, you can not argue that the game has not improved.

Well said.

I think a game every two years would allow them to release a game with less of the ' super ' bugs or issues that can cause the game to be a real pain. The little bugs are always going to appear, but these can be fixed quite easily with minor updates.

Like you said though, its probably a money issue and a year on this kind of game is probably just about enough time. I tend to play a lot of games and no other game that I play gets released or patched with such god awful bugs/issues. I love FM, I have played them for a good 13+ years now, but as they have improved, they have had more and more of these issues.

No denying that this is the best management game on the market, and very close to being a fantastic game, but im getting tired of the 'bugs' which get patched 3 months later only forcing us to start new games and work out new tactics. FM asks you to invest a lot of time to get the best out of it, so its frustrating for that to be wiped out 3 months later.

The little bugs are always going to appear, but these can be fixed quite easily with minor updates.

There's no such thing as a little bug, nor an easy fix. Think of each fix as a stone being dropped into a perfectly still lake. See all the ripples that stone makes? thats the kind of effect 1 minor change in the game code has. Hence one change to fix something creating problems in another area.

The 2 year argument has been mentioned many times, and tbh, its not a solution. apart from the money issues, you will STILL end up with a shed load of bugs that need fixing simply because of the huge amounts of different hardware setups people have. One stat was quoted a few days ago on here saying there were in the region of 1500 different graphics card setups. Combine that with all the different OS and Ram and other set-ups, and you see my point.

and yes, "super keepers" appear every year, but, cliche or not, it IS down to your tactics. SI have admitted that a certain type of chance gets created too often on the latest patch, which will be worked on for 10.3.

Agree completely with anagain and the perfect fm'er's posts, and would also add that training is due a massive overhaul. Seems like eons since any work was done there.

Media is way too repetetive for my liking, and the novelty of the press conferences (didnt buy 09) quickly wears off.

Actually, there is such a thing, and if you look at pretty much any other games out there, you will see little updates are released quite a lot to fix them. Most games arent released with as many bugs as FM though, nor do they release updates which remove some and add more.

Actually, there is such a thing, and if you look at pretty much any other games out there, you will see little updates are released quite a lot to fix them. Most games arent released with as many bugs as FM though, nor do they release updates which remove some and add more.

Really? and how much of experience of coding do you have, then? Shall we take the cricket coach game mentioned in this thread as an example??

Been reading this thread with a bit of interest and feel I have to post now. If you listen to the lastest FM podcast Miles Jacobsen mentions that there are Millions of lines of code in the ME alone. If they cange one bit of code say in the third line of code this could cause a problem in say the 1200th line. A lot of games are now patched due to the fact that the developers especially of console games have to get a game out on a set schedule set by the Publisher. Mind you I'm a big Fallout 3 fan and that was bugged as hell in all versions.

Anyway I have to say the one area of the game that I'd like to see updated is as rinso says the training. I've only played 3 versions of FM but have noted the staleness of this area.

I have some experience with coding during time at Uni, but mainly through my father in law who worked for Remedy Entertainment until he moved onto a much larger games creator.(He worked on Max Payne 1 and 2, and is a huge FM fan). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they can provide a fix within days, but its easy to iron out small bugs in the menus or memory dumps than it is to fix something thats wrong with the ME.

Edit: Some low budget Cricket game is hardly a good comparison.

I have some experience with coding during time at Uni, but mainly through my father in law who worked for Remedy Entertainment until he moved onto a much larger games creator.(He worked on Max Payne 1 and 2, and is a huge FM fan). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they can provide a fix within days, but its easy to iron out small bugs in the menus or memory dumps than it is to fix something thats wrong with the ME.

Edit: Some low budget Cricket game is hardly a good comparison.

menu bugs, agreed, are easy to fix, but if the memory dumps were easy to fix, do you not think they would have ironed them out by now??

Anyways, enough of hijacking the OP's thread...

Actually, there is such a thing, and if you look at pretty much any other games out there, you will see little updates are released quite a lot to fix them. Most games arent released with as many bugs as FM though, nor do they release updates which remove some and add more.

That is really not true. In the last 6 months I have played at least half a dozen games that were bugged worse than FM.

You also have to take in to account that FM is a much bigger game than many out there, or at least there is a lot more that can go wrong. I'd put it in the same bracket as an MMO and there is not one MMO out there that has not had problems with bugs at release and appearing after patches.

Rinso's ripple analogy is perhaps the best I have read to explain how fixing one line of code can wreak havoc on many more. Every action has a consequence.

You need to understand this before you can make radical statements.

Rinso's ripple analogy is perhaps the best I have read

awww shucks, thanks dude!!!

That is really not true. In the last 6 months I have played at least half a dozen games that were bugged worse than FM.

You also have to take in to account that FM is a much bigger game than many out there, or at least there is a lot more that can go wrong. I'd put it in the same bracket as an MMO and there is not one MMO out there that has not had problems with bugs at release and appearing after patches.

Rinso's ripple analogy is perhaps the best I have read to explain how fixing one line of code can wreak havoc on many more. Every action has a consequence.

You need to understand this before you can make radical statements.

I think most people understand that fixing one issue can cause another.

The MMO comparison is good, but major bugs get ironed out within days or even hours on a certain game, with minor ones done in the big updates. A MMO is going to have bugs, they are huge games that require a lot more work than a game like FM.

Btw, would you be kind enough to name and shame these games with bugs? Most games have minor issues, but not many have ones that effect gameplay as much as they do on FM. I have just finished playing through Dragon Age Origins, and theres quite a lot of bugs ( some scenes repeating over and over, some heals not working etc ) which have happened both on mine and my significant others play, but they are problems that can be passed by without causing too many issues with the experience, but sadly for FM when a ME issue happens it can pretty much ruin the game until its fixed.

I think most people understand that fixing one issue can cause another.

The MMO comparison is good, but major bugs get ironed out within days or even hours on a certain game, with minor ones done in the big updates. A MMO is going to have bugs, they are huge games that require a lot more work than a game like FM.

Btw, would you be kind enough to name and shame these games with bugs? Most games have minor issues, but not many have ones that effect gameplay as much as they do on FM.

lol there you have just proved you dont know what youre talking about. Look at all the different user settings at the start of the game on FM. Can you possible re-create everything in testing? really?

And the most obvious game that springs to mind is Mass Effect 1 which, incidentally, the developers REFUSED to patch, despite it having a glaring bug that would crash when you got in an elevator....

Sorry, but can you please explain how you came to the conclusion that I don't know what im talking about? I honestly cannot figure out how you got that from my post.

But its funny how i have played through Mass Effect twice and never had such a problem, nor had anyone else I know who played the game complain about this issue. After looking up this bug it seems it wasn't all that common, and a simple restart would fix the issue, shame you can't do that with a bug on FM.

that require a lot more work than a game like FM.

as for mass effect, when I had the bug, and looked it up on the forums, thats when I found out there was no planned patch for it, it was a case of, oh well, unlucky, save it before you get in a lift. great customer service there

and excuse the double post but, as I said earlier, this is NOT what the Op was intending, and as such, I will desist from now. The OP, along with others, have raised some vaild points, and it would be a shame for the thread to be closed, therefore I will now stfu and leave things be....

^^ thats how I came to that conclusion. Do you really understand the amount of work that goes into each version of FM? Look at the amount of researchers FM has. You think maybe they base their opinions based on 1 game? No? Oh so they watch a few? Oh but thats easy. Really? Crap. Complete and utter crap.

as for mass effect, when I had the bug, and looked it up on the forums, thats when I found out there was no planned patch for it, it was a case of, oh well, unlucky, save it before you get in a lift. great customer service there

I understand that its going to take a vast ammount of research and people scouting to make up the player database, but when it comes to making the actual game, you will find other developers have to invest a lot more, especially for MMO's. The number of people it takes to make FM is unreal, makes one appreciate the effort put into the research that is done to make this fantastic game. However, this is not the point, none of that has anything to do with this topic, bugs or anything elese i have mentioned in this thread. It just seems to be like you are trying to cause trouble, which is a shame because the OP has a quality thread going on here. Please try not to troll this thread anymore.

As for the complete and utter crap line, well it is that, simply because you basically wrote a paragraph of crap you believe to be what i think, and then dismissed it. Seriously, what is up with that?

Please, SI, will you attempt to start a revolution?

Her majesty is clearly terrified by this prospect, which is why she's just decorated the creators.

I understand the arguments in favour of issuing a game every two years. The game does often feel like a mere facelift on last year's one. I would be more than delighted to wait an extra year if SI needed more time to work on a football management simulation game.

The fact of the matter is that certain people within SI clearly realise what it takes to make the game realistic. Although at an infant stage, all the media and player interaction features were a great addition. SI also realises that there is an intangible thing called team morale or harmony that plays a massive part in the game. In numerous experimentations with my favourite tool, fmrte, I have proven that by just changing morale you are able to win impossible games. So the proper weight has been given to it. However, the factors that influence it have not been developed (despite some attempts). This has lead to a weird situation: Morale is hugely important but the player has extremely limited options to do something about it.

Just think about all the things you would do as a real life manager to develop this morale/harmony. All the different approaches you would take with all the different players. Meetings with your staff and directors. Meetings with agends. Communications meetings. Sponsors of team and individual players. The list is endless really.

Like I said, whoever has any experience of managing any team of people of any kind knows perfectly well that assigning roles and putting processes in place is only a small part of management and it is definately not the defining factor between success and failure.

Any manager knows the basics of his industry. Football managers know tactics very very well. The fact though is that no team has ever become great because it used a fantastic tactics. I am not knocking tactics. I am just putting it in its right place. It is an elementary thing in football that managers know how to use. Tactics don't make a team. Management does.

I think it is natural that this game has concentrated so much on tactics. In the past the processing power of computers was limiting the complexity of programming. It was then only feasible to base the game on tactics which is easier mathematicaly than simulating real life management. I was just hoping that, with the development in technology, it could be done now.

If it is a matter that we need a couple of years more to get faster processors, I am willing to wait...

Morale is hugely important but the player has extremely limited options to do something about it.

Same as a manager in real life then?

All the different approaches you would take with all the different players. Meetings with your staff and directors. Meetings with agends. Communications meetings. Sponsors of team and individual players. The list is endless really.

Lots of meetings then. How do you see that working in FM? :confused:

You can actually organise meetings between the players on FM when morale and underachievement is a major issue. You can also meet with your directors in the 'board room' and you can meet with your staff in the 'backroom advice'. In fact, we now have weekly meetings with our staff in FM10.

The main methods of influencing the morale of your team on FM is through press conferences, team talks and through player interaction. Also winning games, being successful and giving out new contracts can help. I'm not denying that there is room for improvement but I think what we have is pretty good so far. Confidence isn't something that is easy to control in real life, otherwise Liverpool, for instance, might not have struggled so badly this season. Just like in real life, confidence in FM most often comes through winning football matches and performing well.

The fact though is that no team has ever become great because it used a fantastic tactics. I am not knocking tactics. I am just putting it in its right place. It is an elementary thing in football that managers know how to use.

I think this is a gross oversimplification. The entire history of football would seem to disagree with you here, I'm afraid.

Have you ever read Inverting the Pyramid?

I think it is natural that this game has concentrated so much on tactics.

I feel that this is a myth personally but, at the same time, it seems clear to me that any football management simulation should include tactics as a major part of the game.

I think if you read or listen to the opinions of anyone involved in football, we can conclude that the following aspects the most important in the game:

- Player quality.

- Tactical choices and decisions.

- Issues of motivation and morale.

This is what is argued by the top coaches and people involved in the game and this is also the case in Football Manager. In fact, having read the opinions of many football coaches myself, I must say that FM does a rather marvellous job of reflecting the complexity (which I obviously wouldn't deny can be improved - but nevertheless what we have is very good in my opinion).

Going back to the three important factors identified above, we can say that in real life, as in Football Manager, the following (although hugely simplified, of course) might be said to be generally true:

Good players + good tactics + good morale = success.

Good players + bad tactics + bad morale = underachieving.

Bad players + good tactics + good morale = overachieving.

And so on and so forth...

I don't see this argument that tactics need to be concentrated on more than anything else in FM. If you check out Dafuge's record on FM09 with his Dartford team, this pretty much blows the opinion that tactics are the only important thing on FM out of the water. Dafuge normally builds a fundamentally sound tactic but generally works on squad building primarily, scouting for the best players and bringing them to his club. He doesn't tend to do very much in the way of tactical tweaking and, as I understand it, uses the same kind of approach throughout his career. His success is a testament to the fact that good players and good man management/motivation, alongside making good non-tactical decisions in other areas, are all just as important as tactics in FM.

To play Football Manager, you do need a basic knowledge of football tactics, and that is how it should be. Furthermore, the history of football is littered with examples of football teams who have managed to overachieve due to playing to their strengths. Contemporary examples might include Greece in 2004, Liverpool in 2005 or perhaps a team like Bolton under Sam Allardyce. Classic examples might include Hungary in the 1950s, Herbert Chapman's Arsenal or even Sir Alf Ramsey's 'Wingless Wonders'. I'm sure other people will think of even stronger examples. The point is that there are so many examples of teams achieving success way beyond their resources due to tactical choices which meant that they could play to their strengths, play as a collective whole way beyond their individual abilities and also exploit weaknesses in their opposition. That's what the great managers do, as well as being successful at man management, motivation, buying players and all of the 'behind the scenes' work that goes on in the running of a football club, and that is also what you need to do on FM to be successful.

Regards,

C.

I am sorry crouchaldinho but since you hurt my feelings by shouting and swearing at another thread I don't want to speak to you. Besides you think that what we have is excellent so you are clearly not the person to strive for improvement let alone to think radically. Thanks for the input anyway...

I understand the arguments in favour of issuing a game every two years. The game does often feel like a mere facelift on last year's one. I would be more than delighted to wait an extra year if SI needed more time to work on a football management simulation game.

Yes, but it's not going to happen. Whilst there may be arguments in favour of it, they'll all be rejected. Add to that that 75% of fans (at least) would be appalled with a two yearly game release. Then CM would have a major advantage.

Like I said, whoever has any experience of managing any team of people of any kind knows perfectly well that assigning roles and putting processes in place is only a small part of management and it is definately not the defining factor between success and failure.

And what is your experience Mr Tak? Championship, League 2, Blue Square South or Manchester Sunday League? You keep mentioning this 'anyone involved in management knows'. Do you know someone or do you manage? If you do, and you manage a Sunday League team or schoolboys then I think there is a whole world of difference.

The fact though is that no team has ever become great because it used a fantastic tactics. I am not knocking tactics. I am just putting it in its right place. It is an elementary thing in football that managers know how to use. Tactics don't make a team. Management does.

Yes, but a good manager uses his quality knowledge of the tactical side of the game to build success. Do you think Manchester United win everything because morale is good or because Sir Alex knows how to build a winning formation? It's a bit of both, I suspect, but his tactical knowledge of the game is phenomenal. And I hate Manchester United, but I respect that Sir Alex is a manager of the highest quality and that his team don't win games because they're all happy and having fantastic team parties.

Right now I am listening to Bournemouth lose 2-0 to Northampton (yes, I know I should be there - working nights wreaks havoc with your life). Eddie Howe is having a torrid season with injuries and it is made worse by the FL trying to screw us. We lost Cummings (left back) this week so Eddie went out with a 5-3-2 formation and we conceded twice in the first 15 minutes. After the second goal he switched the team back to the usual 4-4-2 and Northampton suddenly didn't find it so easy. Are you, then, saying that tactics had no part in that? If we'd gone out 4-4-2 would we be 2-0 down?

Yes morale has a part in the players favouring the usual 4-4-2 but the tactic is the key part here.

Eddie bought on Supa Fletch near the end of the first half to add more height to the front line and a more battling presence. Now that's a tactical change that makes us look a different side.

Again, it's the morale that Supa brings us changing things, but, more so, it's a tactical change.

The Bournemouth team morale is great. It's a small squad brought together in challenging circumstances. Eddie is a great manager but it's not just him boosting morale. He picks the right teams and the right formations. That's what wins us games.

I think it is natural that this game has concentrated so much on tactics. In the past the processing power of computers was limiting the complexity of programming. It was then only feasible to base the game on tactics which is easier mathematicaly than simulating real life management. I was just hoping that, with the development in technology, it could be done now.

Well it's the match engine that keeps causing people to say the game is bugged to hell, not the team morale mechanisms. I think there is infinitely more complexity in the tactical/match engine side of FM than there is the player happiness/morale side of FM.

Maybe the fact that the mental side of the game hasn't change a huge amount has something to do with that.

I am sorry crouchaldinho but since you hurt my feelings by shouting and swearing at another thread I don't want to speak to you. Besides you think that what we have is excellent so you are clearly not the person to strive for improvement let alone to think radically. Thanks for the input anyway...

He took the time to reply to your thread and yet you don't wish to reply to him? Are you not willing to accept that your ideas may be wrong? You have to look at both sides of a discussion, even if you may disagree with the other view.

I definitely think that small changes to tactics or slight "problems" in the tactic have too much of a negative effect.

I wish SI would focus more on the media as this is how we all see and experience football. As you say in the OP, relationships need to be more in-depth and you should be able to improve your team by genuinely getting them to trust you and want to play for you which it just doesnt feel like it does.

I am sorry crouchaldinho but since you hurt my feelings by shouting and swearing at another thread I don't want to speak to you.

I haven't been shouting and swearing anywhere. :confused: I don't like swearing for a start!

I cannot help but wonder if you have got me mixed up with someone else?

I've given you some constructive feedback on your topic of choice. I think it is a shame that you won't consider it.

Besides you think that what we have is excellent so you are clearly not the person to strive for improvement let alone to think radically.

Although I do feel that what we have at the moment is very good, I also see plenty of potential for improvement, a fact which I stressed in my post above. I'm always trying to think of ways to make this game the best it can be. That's why I am involved as a beta tester and a researcher for SI. You will see that I give constructive feedback on the game very often in the beta forum, on the research forums, in the bugs and data threads, in the tactics forum and here in GD. Also see my FM09 feedback thread from last year. To say that I am not interested in improving FM is therefore thoroughly incorrect.

Regards,

C.

The big change the game needs to make is to create challenges in the game more realistically.

It is claimed that the game balances itself out by making teams counter your tactics due to levelling up - is this true?

In reality the teams at the top are the ones with the better players. Face it Chelsea's real life tactics are pretty poor. No width, no creativity in midfield - so why are they top scoring the most goals? Well, a strike force of Drogba and Anelka helps and midfielders like Lampard, Essien and Ballack. In other words the players transcend the tactics. There is serious talk of how the loss of the African players will affect them as they know Chelsea's tactics rely on the strength and goals of Drogba - Sturridge is not a replacement.

In my game I am in the play-off places with Romone Rose heading towards 20 goals and yet there has been no interest from higher league clubs. In reality Chris Hussey showed form and was signed by Coventry forcing us to replace a player - something we haven't yet done. This is a challenging part of the game I haven't seen - your best players being poached by higher league clubs. Is it in the game because none of my players have been bid upon? Forced squad rebuild is a way to add another layer of depth to the game.

I also disagree with teams learning your tactics and this seems to be the way the game balances itself out. A tactic lives or dies by the players in it - one equation that Crouchaldinho left out = Good players+bad tactics+good morale=Success dependant on the quality of the players. We also need to have individual players carrying a team forward to success - Steven Gerrard is a good example of this - regardless of the tactics.

The game should be balanced less with artificial balancing but more with injuries, suspensions and losing players to bigger clubs - that is the revolution the game needs. A philosopical one

Well said, a philosophical change is what I am talking about.

Anyway,

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=173086

This is a thread that shows the quality of the players/media/staff interaction "features" we have at the moment. "Features" that some people have characterised "excellent". Let me repeat: fair play to whoever within the SI decided to build them in. Nevertheless, they are still very very poor.

Anagain, wrote previously that we simply disagree and let's leave it at that, I said fair enough, and then he decided to attack me personaly. I have never managed a football team, if you really like to know. However, I have started by managing small teams and I currently manage a large organisation.

I am glad you brought the Alex Ferguson example up. Alex is a great manager and a personal acquaintance from the races. He is not presenting some unkown tactic that shocks the opponent. Everyone knows how ManU plays and it is really simple. One of Alex's talents is that he gets the best out of his players. Careful though, because you are inclined to say "but, sure, this is what FM is all about: to give specific instructions to specific players and maximise their performance". Big mistake. Taking the best out of a player has not so much to do with giving him the right instructions but more with the relationship you develop with him. What instructions did Alex give Solskjaer before he went in? Were they tactical instructions? Did he tell him how many clicks forward he should be? lol

I don't want to concentrate on morale either. Morale is a general term and does not really help my cause. Relationships include mixtures trust, love, hate, fear, respect, ambition, competition, jealousy, anger etc.

That is why a visionary is needed to simulate the wolrd of management. Someone who sees into the future. Because it is extremely complicated and daunting.

Personally, I think it's far too easy to build a squad capable of dominating the league. The game has balanced this in the last couple of versions by making player quality less important than real life IMO, to make the game more of a challenge.

I don't see this argument that tactics need to be concentrated on more than anything else in FM. If you check out Dafuge's record on FM09 with his Dartford team, this pretty much blows the opinion that tactics are the only important thing on FM out of the water. Dafuge normally builds a fundamentally sound tactic but generally works on squad building primarily, scouting for the best players and bringing them to his club. He doesn't tend to do very much in the way of tactical tweaking and, as I understand it, uses the same kind of approach throughout his career. His success is a testament to the fact that good players and good man management/motivation, alongside making good non-tactical decisions in other areas, are all just as important as tactics in FM.

Just to add to this, I've done the same thing this year.

This is my current career with Tooting & Mitcham, which I have played using the same tactic from day one that I created using the demo. I never change my tactics going into a match and only ever make changes if I need to towards the end of the game. The tactic hasn't even been adjusted after the patches.

Season    League                   Position    Achievements
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010/11   Blue Square South        5th         Promoted via playoffs
2011/12   Blue Square Premier      8th
2012/13   Blue Square Premier      2nd         Promoted via playoffs, FA Trophy finalists
2013/14   Coca-Cola League 2       6th         Lost in playoff final
2014/15   Coca-Cola League 2       1st         Promoted as champions
2015/16   Coca-Cola League 1       4th         Promoted via playoffs, JPT finalists
2016/17   Coca-Cola Championship   9th
2017/18   Coca-Cola Championship   6th         Lost in playoff semi
2018/19   Coca-Cola Championship   4th         Promoted via playoffs
2019/20   Barclays Premier League  16th        
2020/21   Barclays Premier League  11th
2021/22   Barclays Premier League  3rd         FA Cup finalists
2022/23   Barclays Premier League  7th         Carling Cup finalists, FA Cup winners
2023/24   Barclays Premier League  3rd
2024/25   Barclays Premier League  5th         Champions League finalists
2025/26   Barclays Premier League  3rd         Carling Cup finalists
2026/27   Barclays Premier League  2nd
2027/28   Barclays Premier League  1st         Premier League and Champions League winners
2028/29   Barclays Premier League  1st         PL, CL and CWC winners, Carling Cup finalists

What has been said is true, I work hard on a solid tactic then concentrate on getting better players and keeping them happy.

Sorry lads but it's very funny that dafuge had to present his "achievements" as some sort of an argument. Most of the players do that at least once in every edition. We take a tiny little team and lead it to conquering the Champions League.

Anagain, wrote previously that we simply disagree and let's leave it at that, I said fair enough, and then he decided to attack me personaly. I have never managed a football team, if you really like to know. However, I have started by managing small teams and I currently manage a large organisation.

I am glad you brought the Alex Ferguson example up. Alex is a great manager and a personal acquaintance from the races. He is not presenting some unkown tactic that shocks the opponent. Everyone knows how ManU plays and it is really simple. One of Alex's talents is that he gets the best out of his players. Careful though, because you are inclined to say "but, sure, this is what FM is all about: to give specific instructions to specific players and maximise their performance". Big mistake. Taking the best out of a player has not so much to do with giving him the right instructions but more with the relationship you develop with him. What instructions did Alex give Solskjaer before he went in? Were they tactical instructions? Did he tell him how many clicks forward he should be? lol

I don't want to concentrate on morale either. Morale is a general term and does not really help my cause. Relationships include mixtures trust, love, hate, fear, respect, ambition, competition, jealousy, anger etc.

Well, I am sorry if you took my question as an insult. It wasn't meant that way. You sounded like you were managing in football to give your the points you draw your conclusions from. I was merely asking, in my own way (which was probably the wrong way, as it usually is), where this management was.

I decided to continue the discussion because you seem unwilling to accept a counter viewpoint as if your thoughts are obviously correct.

As I said before the slider system is just a way of putting the tactical side of the game into a computer simulation. What would you do to better represent that Solskjaer should play advanced or deep? You have to have that represented somehow, and I don't think you can make that happen just by treating Solskjaer with respect. You have to have some sort of input system to tell him where to be. The sliders do that.

If you completely take the sliders out of FM what are you left with to tell your team how to play? Set formations with no degree of tweaking? You play 4-4-2 A or you play 4-4-2 B, but you have more ways to let your players know they respect you and to boost their trust, love, hate or fear of you. That, somehow, seems as shallow a game as one that susposedly is a simple case of pick a tactic and go with it.

We can take FM forward in new ways, because I agree that the personal relationship side of FM can be improved upon, but you can't take out the sliders completely. You have to tell a player how you want him to play, even if that is just to tell him to play a free role.

So what instructions did Sir Alex tell you he gave Solskjaer if you know the man?

The game uses Morale because it encompasses a range of terms into one easy to compare category. If FM starts to use a whole range of social relationships then it is going to become over complicated and more Sims 2 than Football Manager. Would knowing how jealous your top scorer is of you or his fellow striker really help you improve team performances?

I don't want to concentrate on morale either. Morale is a general term and does not really help my cause.

But this is a discussion. Discussion's can't evaluate a theory if you choose to ignore something because it does not conform to your wishes. It's like Newton saying he ignored the apple because he didn't want to believe in gravity. It didn't fall because it wasn't there. And, yes, I know Newton believed in gravity....just suppose he didn't.

You have to look at different viewpoints or you come across fanatical. SI looked at different viewpoints when they devised their current tactical interface; the wizard. People had said they didn't like the sliders so SI gave them a new way to devise tactics that left the sliding of sliders to the engine. They obviously decided they couldn't be removed though, and you can still tweak them to get across how you want your team to play.

It is a misunderstanding that you think I want to toss the whole tactical system of FM. All I want is to give tactics the same importance as they have in real life. Which is not as big as it is in FM now. Because the actual management is more important.

We have reached a point where almost everything that happens in the virtual FM field has to be explained by tactics. And that is fine, it is a great game, I will always buy it anyway. That's not to say though that there is not an opportunity to create something monumental. I don't even think it will be like SIMS. I imagine it will be like nothing we have experienced before. But I am just a romantic fool sometimes...

Sir Alex told Ole (and I know that from an interview not from the horse's mouth, so to speak) "see this cup? you will walk in front of it but you won't be able to touch it". Now, this is some fine piece of management and I am sure Sir Alex would have a different thing to say to anyone he would choose to throw in.

Of course the natural question is "ok, so how do you actually propose to simulate real life management?" The natural answer is "I don't have a single clue" I am not a creative developer, sadly. I believe though that there is a great opportunity.

Without reading the responses so far, here are my two cents:

Most of the people who know and love football will know immediately what I am talking about (tactics is a very small part of management).

That could not be further from the truth. Tactics and the evolution of tactics is arguably the most key component of the 'real life' game of football. To think that it isn't basically nullifies your post. I'd suggest posting this in the tactics forum and I imagine you'll get a fairly good discussion in there.

You've also not mentioned many ideas in reference to your 'leap of faith' SI need to take. For me the game is at a stage now where it has all the components a real life manager has at his disposal. What SI need to work on now is making certain aspects slightly less tedious (press conferences) and more varied (team talks).

I am sorry crouchaldinho but since you hurt my feelings by shouting and swearing at another thread I don't want to speak to you. Besides you think that what we have is excellent so you are clearly not the person to strive for improvement let alone to think radically. Thanks for the input anyway...

Sorry lads but it's very funny that dafuge had to present his "achievements" as some sort of an argument. Most of the players do that at least once in every edition. We take a tiny little team and lead it to conquering the Champions League.

And now having read through the thread and responses I've read these frankly childish responses. Tak you started off a thread with good potential for discussion here but these above responses indicate you are very blinkered and stubborn in terms of being 'creative'. Shame really as crouchaldinho clearly put a lot of thought into his response. If you can't take constructive criticism of your own ideas then I'd suggest you don't look for discussion like this in future. Shame.

The fact though is that no team has ever become great because it used a fantastic tactics. I am not knocking tactics. I am just putting it in its right place. It is an elementary thing in football that managers know how to use. Tactics don't make a team. Management does.

I think the tacticians behind these successes would disagree actually:

Greece - Euro 2004

Porto - Champions League 2004

Marseille - European Cup 1993

Red Star - European Cup 1991

Ajax - European Cups 1971/72/73

The Dutch Team that totally revolutionized tactics with Total Football in the 70's.

To claim that tactics are an elementary thing that all managers know how to use is absolutely ludicrous. The difference between winning and losing over the history of football has been down to tactical 'leaps of faith' so to speak. Outwitting the other team. Knowing more about how to exploit weaknesses in the opposition. I can understand you calling for greater detail in other aspects of a manager's day to day life in FM but at the cost of the tactical engine? Ridiculous.

This is how much thought crouchaldinho puts into his response: "It's just rubbish. Moronic and infantile nonsense."

Excuse me iacovone but I am not talking to a bully.

As for presenting dafuge's career as some kind of an argument, what can I say, I think it's funny.

To answer your observation about tactics, I completely agree that tactics have been evolved during the history of football (along with player's abilities, pitches, equipment, training methods, diets and many many things). I don't think that has anything to do with what I'm saying though...

Edit: I would like to ask you to keep this discussion civilised. As for the examples you mentioned, I am delighted. Let us take Greece 2004, for example. What was the revolutionary tactical approach? Put 11 players behind the ball and wait for the right moment (preferably a set piece) to strike. Trully innovative! Greece's success had nothing to do with a new tactic that confused the opposition. It was based on pure psychology, masterminded by the great Otto. He basically created a team (hard to tell how) that was determined, strong and resilient. Those players would do anything for each other. He also exploited the fact that Greece were complete underdogs and their opponents never saw them coming.

Sorry lads but it's very funny that dafuge had to present his "achievements" as some sort of an argument. Most of the players do that at least once in every edition. We take a tiny little team and lead it to conquering the Champions League.

Why do you find it necessary to belittle dafuge's achievements with Tooting and Mitchell. Dafuges challenge as well as Gundo's and all the other small club to big club challenges are actually quite difficult and rely on using all the areas of FM. So this includes the morale system, the scouting system etc but the most important one is the Tactical side of it.

Dafuge has posted his achievements as a means to show what can be achieved when you have a very strong tactic and also bring in the players who will fit your systerm and not just those who are the best in the world.

You did have a great opportunity for a very good and possibly lively discussion here (which is why this is the General Discussiono forum) but unfortunately you've managed to kill that dead with your refusal to take on some constructive critisim and also the proof thatg tactics are an important part of the game.