The Tactics Module - Improving Clarity and Control

The tactics module is, quite rightly, one of the most important in the game.

Good tactics can make an average side good, a good side great.

Bad tactics can make a great side underperform. Football has never been about the best XI, and FM reflects this well.

Having said that, I think most would agree that the tactics module is a long way from intuitive. A read through the threads in the tactics bible show how immensely complex things really are, and I think this is actually a bad thing. The meanings of controls should be clear, not requiring hours of study. Subtle changes shouldn't have the power to dramatically alter an individual performance.

There are also many areas where we still don't have anything like the control we need. There are work-rounds for some of the stuff I'm discussing here, but that's not what this thread is about. I shouldn't need work-rounds for obvious instructions.

I'm setting out a number of suggested changes here, and others can add their thoughts, ideas and comments. I'd love to see Paul or anyone else from SI contribute here.

GUI and Graphical Controls

I was always one of the great advocates of sliders, and still think there are places they are the best control option.

But a major problem in FM, in my opinion, is you cannot see any sense of what a change really means.

If we take Defensive Line as an obvious one, then why can we not see this as a line on the pitch? That's how a real manager would be talking about it. "I want you to push up to here".

The more areas changes like this can be made, the better.

Positioning and Formations

There are many controls that dictate how our players behave with and without the ball. The key is the arrow, which talks about movement either in attacking moves (forward arrows) or defensive ones (backward arrows). Yet we should be able to set the shape of our side both with and without the ball.

I'm not advocating a return to the old-style with-ball/without-ball system. But I do feel we need either:

a)The ability to set defensive and offensive arrows on each player or

b)Simple "with-ball/without-ball" screens that set the shape of the side in these two basic plays.

Zone of Operation

A big miss in terms of our tactical control is the inability to tell our players where we define their personal zone of play. We can set zonal marking, but not the zones. It's not just defensive situations this affects.

Offensively, we cannot make our striker stay central, our winger hug the touchline.

A simple way of doing this would be to set areas in which each player is to primarily operate.

The pitch can be broken into a grid, and we simply box in the squares to define operation. Using a system like this, allied to the defensive/offensive shape could replace individual mentality sliders.

The zone would influence who a player picks up, where he moves to in attacking situations, how narrow or wide he plays etc.

They wouldn't be set-in-stone, and things like creative freedom, free roles, team mentality etc would also have an affect on how much they roam from their box.

Mentality

I'd personally rather have systems as set above, plus a team mentality slider.

But if we were keeping both, I still think changes are needed. Currently, we can set team and individual mentalities, and the individual ones override the team setting.

I don't think this is the intuitive interpretation.

Individual mentality should constitute how the player plays within the overall system. So rather than overriding team settings, they work in conjunction.

This would allow you to easily adjust mentality, in a match or between matches, using one slider, not potentially altering eleven.

Closing-down/Pressing

Who watched Barnsley-Chelsea? The key there was how the Barnsley players pressed hard on the man on the ball every time. They stuck to their zones, and were aggressive.

We cannot do this in FM.

Our Closing Down options are zonal, and we have no influence on aggression or frequency of the pressing.

Ideally, allied to the zone of operation idea, Closing Down would become an "Aggressiveness" setting, dictating how hard we pressed, from stand-off at one end to "In his face" at the other.

Failing that, we need a new slider alongside Closing Down that determines the aggression of how players are closed down.

Tempo

Tempo is a confusing instruction that influences far more than it should.

Tempo should NOT affect my striker's finishing.

Tempo should dictate how quickly we move the ball around, nothing more. How quickly the team moves to attacking scenarios should be controlled by other settings like mentality.

Passing, Preferential Feeds and Direction of Passing

It mystifies me that we do not have individual controls on who passes where, to who, and how.

I want most of my play to be short and through the middle, but want my full-backs to knock the ball longer for my wingers to run onto. Why can I not say that?

Not having these options, how to ideally pass to either of my strikers (the current targetman thing doesn't work, because you cannot set a different feed depending on which player is targetman), where to pass from particular positions, drastically restricts our ability to get the best of our players. It's probably the biggest "miss" in the tactics module.

Missing Instructions

Okay, where's my "Make overlapping runs" box for my full-backs?

Where's my "Drop off" instruction for forwards?

Where's my "Cut inside" instruction?

Where's my "Stay on the last defender" instruction?

Where's my "Run at the defender" instruction? (Run with ball doesn't tell the player to take players on, and I want my strikers to push into the box, not just shoot from 18-20 yards)

Set Pieces

I posted extensively on this the other day, so I'll just link to that thread:

Set-Pieces in FM2009

I'm not claiming this is exhaustive, these are just some thoughts and ideas on making the key module better for the user. I'm sure people can come up with good ideas of their own.

If we can avoid claims of cheating AI etc, that'd be nice too!

The tactics module is, quite rightly, one of the most important in the game.

Good tactics can make an average side good, a good side great.

Bad tactics can make a great side underperform. Football has never been about the best XI, and FM reflects this well.

Having said that, I think most would agree that the tactics module is a long way from intuitive. A read through the threads in the tactics bible show how immensely complex things really are, and I think this is actually a bad thing. The meanings of controls should be clear, not requiring hours of study. Subtle changes shouldn't have the power to dramatically alter an individual performance.

There are also many areas where we still don't have anything like the control we need. There are work-rounds for some of the stuff I'm discussing here, but that's not what this thread is about. I shouldn't need work-rounds for obvious instructions.

I'm setting out a number of suggested changes here, and others can add their thoughts, ideas and comments. I'd love to see Paul or anyone else from SI contribute here.

GUI and Graphical Controls

I was always one of the great advocates of sliders, and still think there are places they are the best control option.

But a major problem in FM, in my opinion, is you cannot see any sense of what a change really means.

If we take Defensive Line as an obvious one, then why can we not see this as a line on the pitch? That's how a real manager would be talking about it. "I want you to push up to here".

The more areas changes like this can be made, the better.

Positioning and Formations

There are many controls that dictate how our players behave with and without the ball. The key is the arrow, which talks about movement either in attacking moves (forward arrows) or defensive ones (backward arrows). Yet we should be able to set the shape of our side both with and without the ball.

I'm not advocating a return to the old-style with-ball/without-ball system. But I do feel we need either:

a)The ability to set defensive and offensive arrows on each player or

b)Simple "with-ball/without-ball" screens that set the shape of the side in these two basic plays.

Zone of Operation

A big miss in terms of our tactical control is the inability to tell our players where we define their personal zone of play. We can set zonal marking, but not the zones. It's not just defensive situations this affects.

Offensively, we cannot make our striker stay central, our winger hug the touchline.

A simple way of doing this would be to set areas in which each player is to primarily operate.

The pitch can be broken into a grid, and we simply box in the squares to define operation. Using a system like this, allied to the defensive/offensive shape could replace individual mentality sliders.

The zone would influence who a player picks up, where he moves to in attacking situations, how narrow or wide he plays etc.

They wouldn't be set-in-stone, and things like creative freedom, free roles, team mentality etc would also have an affect on how much they roam from their box.

Mentality

I'd personally rather have systems as set above, plus a team mentality slider.

But if we were keeping both, I still think changes are needed. Currently, we can set team and individual mentalities, and the individual ones override the team setting.

I don't think this is the intuitive interpretation.

Individual mentality should constitute how the player plays within the overall system. So rather than overriding team settings, they work in conjunction.

This would allow you to easily adjust mentality, in a match or between matches, using one slider, not potentially altering eleven.

Closing-down/Pressing

Who watched Barnsley-Chelsea? The key there was how the Barnsley players pressed hard on the man on the ball every time. They stuck to their zones, and were aggressive.

We cannot do this in FM.

Our Closing Down options are zonal, and we have no influence on aggression or frequency of the pressing.

Ideally, allied to the zone of operation idea, Closing Down would become an "Aggressiveness" setting, dictating how hard we pressed, from stand-off at one end to "In his face" at the other.

Failing that, we need a new slider alongside Closing Down that determines the aggression of how players are closed down.

Tempo

Tempo is a confusing instruction that influences far more than it should.

Tempo should NOT affect my striker's finishing.

Tempo should dictate how quickly we move the ball around, nothing more. How quickly the team moves to attacking scenarios should be controlled by other settings like mentality.

Passing, Preferential Feeds and Direction of Passing

It mystifies me that we do not have individual controls on who passes where, to who, and how.

I want most of my play to be short and through the middle, but want my full-backs to knock the ball longer for my wingers to run onto. Why can I not say that?

Not having these options, how to ideally pass to either of my strikers (the current targetman thing doesn't work, because you cannot set a different feed depending on which player is targetman), where to pass from particular positions, drastically restricts our ability to get the best of our players. It's probably the biggest "miss" in the tactics module.

Missing Instructions

Okay, where's my "Make overlapping runs" box for my full-backs?

Where's my "Drop off" instruction for forwards?

Where's my "Cut inside" instruction?

Where's my "Stay on the last defender" instruction?

Where's my "Run at the defender" instruction? (Run with ball doesn't tell the player to take players on, and I want my strikers to push into the box, not just shoot from 18-20 yards)

Set Pieces

I posted extensively on this the other day, so I'll just link to that thread:

Set-Pieces in FM2009

I'm not claiming this is exhaustive, these are just some thoughts and ideas on making the key module better for the user. I'm sure people can come up with good ideas of their own.

If we can avoid claims of cheating AI etc, that'd be nice too!

Excellent post, Dave, although I would disagree with one thing and add one thing.

I disagree with a return to WIB/WOB. It just isn't realistic. I agree that the current interface also isn't realistic, but I don't want to go from one bad option to another.

On missing instructions, I think there really needs to be a marking instruction for "Mark Ballside" and "Mark Goalside". There also has to be a way, to keep a central defender from getting pulled out of position by a withdrawn forward or midfielder, only to have the space exploited by a killer pass.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gunnerfan:

I disagree with a return to WIB/WOB. It just isn't realistic. I agree that the current interface also isn't realistic, but I don't want to go from one bad option to another. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did say that I'm not advocating a return to Wibble/Wobble.

Just options to define overall shape in those two situations (either screens, or arrows). That's entirely realistic.

Good post. Should be done (everything you've said). Will it though? Can only hope.

Gunnerfan, I don't think Dave is talking about a return to the WIB/WOB format altogether, but how can a manager who tells his players okay lads you do "this" with the ball, and you do "that" when you don't have the ball, NOT be realistic?

Granted, the defensive position is where the player is placed on the formation screen (in the case of him having a Forward Arrow), or where his Back Arrow ends. But this format limits a manager's options. The biggest problem I have as a result of this is when I wish to use Side Arrows on Wingers, to make them stay more infield. By using a Side Arrow on a player, it effectively means I cannot give him a defensive position further back using a Back Arrow, because you can only have the one arrow for every player.

Would you not agree that the option to use several arrows would be a change for the better?

Good post Dave. Should be done (everything you've said). Will it though? Can only hope.

Gunnerfan, I don't think Dave is talking about a return to the WIB/WOB format altogether, but how can a manager who tells his players okay lads you do "this" with the ball, and you do "that" when you don't have the ball, NOT be realistic?

Granted, the defensive position is where the player is placed on the formation screen (in the case of him having a Forward Arrow), or where his Back Arrow ends. But this format limits a manager's options. The biggest problem I have as a result of this is when I wish to use Side Arrows on Wingers, to make them stay more infield. By using a Side Arrow on a player, it effectively means I cannot give him a defensive position further back using a Back Arrow, because you can only have the one arrow for every player.

Would you not agree that the option to use several arrows would be a change for the better?

Oops. Apologies for the double post.

Another good post Dave, with lots of good ideas- might also be worth posting this in T and T forum

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FrazT:

Another good post Dave, with lots of good ideas- might only be worth posting this in T and T forum? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post :thumbup:

I'd like to see tactics become simpler and more user-friendly whilst being able to do more complex things, if you catch my drift.

Things like over-lapping runs and strikers dropping off should be easily set rather than having to fiddle with mentalities and forward runs and many other sliders.

I think it should be clearer what your changes are actually doing to the shape of your team and a graphical representation of this - with regards to D-line, zonal marking/closing down - should be included.

Can't disagree with any of that really, as long as it isn't done in an overcomplicated way. There are already many people who think tactics are too complicated, without giving them any extra options.

Quote of wwfans:

"FM needs ambiguity if it is to remain a simulation over and above an arcade game. The slider instructions must contain some ambiguity so we can't take a purely positivistic approach. We must learn to manage. And learning to manage means accepting ambiguity and ambivalence and coping with them both to the best of your ability"

Personally i think he's hit the nail on the head here. Ambiguity is perfectly acceptable in my opinion.

Although i agree with the rest of your post, positioning, zone of operation and closing down are excellent points, and one of the major frustrations when playing FM - there's very little scope to play like barnsley did.

The tempo point is spot on also. In some situations it could be seen to have an effect on finishing, but too many times it is the difference between creating 30 chances and scoring 0, and creating 3 chances and scoring 2.

My current formation has overlapping runs, one striker dropping off and another striker staying on the last defender. It can be achieved quite logically with the existing controls - tick boxes would perhaps make this easier.

Instructing players when to make a run is a glaring fault in FM.

Set pieces (somehow i missed that thread when you posted it) are an area of immense frustration at the moment. Why lampard decides to touch the ball so terry can have a shot from 30 yards is beyond me, some degree of control is essential.

Breaking down the pitch into sections would be perfect (it strikes me as so obvious i can only wonder why SI haven't already done it) i clearly don't want the same players taking all my set pieces, but FM doesn't allow any control over this. (interestingly, in my current save, my designated set piece taker flat out refuses to take free kicks - am going to post in the bugs forum at some point but was wondering if anybody had seen this before?)

I don't want there to be no ambiguity; the ambiguity should always stem from the interaction of the instructions and the nature of the player.

Having a single instruction that is, in itself, ambiguous is just poor design from my perspective.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

I don't want there to be no ambiguity; the ambiguity should always stem from the interaction of the instructions and the nature of the player.

Having a single instruction that is, in itself, ambiguous is just poor design from my perspective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, maybe i've gotten the wrong end of the stick, what exactly is it that you feel is amiguous?

Just a few i can remeber:

mentality

tempo

passing

width

tackling

try through balls

long shots

crossing

run with all

forward runs

et al, all seem to be fairly obvious and perform as i'd expect them to. IMO ambiguity comes into the equation when the instructions start to interact with one another, which i feel is only realistic.

Single instructions seem fine though.

I'm not stating you're wrong, just asking for some clarification before i make any such claims.

I'd say Mentality, Tempo, Closing Down, Tackling, Creative Freedom could all be subject to different interpretations (read some of the posts on these forums to prove that), and all have effects on their own that transcend the pure meaning most would take.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

I'd say Mentality, Tempo, Closing Down, Tackling, Creative Freedom could all be subject to different interpretations (read some of the posts on these forums to prove that), and all have effects on their own that transcend the pure meaning most would take. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well i take a lot of what i read on these forums with a pinch of salt lol.

I think i see where our views differ the line "pure meaning most would take" - obviously i'm only referring to my own views on the ambiguity of the sliders, so i'll accept that you probably know more about how the general populous view the game.

Would it be acceptable to just sort out the manual rather than scrap (or modify) the sliders?

Just taking one of your examples: Mentality, the manual currently defines this as:

"Mentality directly affects a player's position on the field. .... the further right the slider is set for team instruction, the more aggressive your players will play positionally and more abitious they may be when passing..."

While this is essentially true, those of us with more than half a brain know that mentality has much more far reaching consequences.

I'll take a recent example: In a network game, my friend was playing with a generally attacking mentality while my team were on the defensive side of normal. He commented that it was daft that i'd scored 1.5gpg more than him despite having similar quality players and playing more defensively - it took me some time to explain that high mentality was causing his players to make poor choices as it narrowed what options were available to them.

So while some peopler (i would include myself in this) might deduce the subtleties of the sliders, could it be that the ambiguity you talk of is more a result of a poor manual rather than the sliders?

Hence why recently i've had people reacting badly when i've told them it's their tactics that cause their team to take 30 yard shots even when long shots are set to rarely...

Would you consider this a fair comment? Sorry i've rambled a bit.

* appologies for typos, some people clearly can't think and type at the same time. Doh.

I think it's fair comment, the manual doesn't help, but I personally think that the sliders need to perform closer to their manual-defined meaning, not vice-versa.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

I think it's fair comment, the manual doesn't help, but I personally think that the sliders need to perform closer to their manual-defined meaning, not vice-versa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But then in order to get the degree of flexibility that the sliders achieve, wouldn't you need substantially more options?

If, for example, mentality ONLY controlled where on the pitch the player played, then surely another set of sliders (or whatever we may have substituted tham for) would be needed to control direction of passing, tendancy to shoot etc.

Also, if these options had similar ambiguous knock-on effects to tempo, time wasting etc, then wouldn't we be back where we started, but with more sliders?

I'm not claiming sliders are perfect, but i feel if everybody was aware of their potential and their limitations then the tedious "AI cheats" "superkeepers" and assorted other rants, would be kept to a minimum. As it exists the ability for people to do what they want is there, some people just don't know this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

Quote of wwfans:

"FM needs ambiguity if it is to remain a simulation over and above an arcade game. The slider instructions must contain some ambiguity so we can't take a purely positivistic approach. We must learn to manage. And learning to manage means accepting ambiguity and ambivalence and coping with them both to the best of your ability"

Personally i think he's hit the nail on the head here. Ambiguity is perfectly acceptable in my opinion.

Although i agree with the rest of your post, positioning, zone of operation and closing down are excellent points, and one of the major frustrations when playing FM - there's very little scope to play like barnsley did.

The tempo point is spot on also. In some situations it could be seen to have an effect on finishing, but too many times it is the difference between creating 30 chances and scoring 0, and creating 3 chances and scoring 2.

My current formation has overlapping runs, one striker dropping off and another striker staying on the last defender. It can be achieved quite logically with the existing controls - tick boxes would perhaps make this easier.

Instructing players when to make a run is a glaring fault in FM.

Set pieces (somehow i missed that thread when you posted it) are an area of immense frustration at the moment. Why lampard decides to touch the ball so terry can have a shot from 30 yards is beyond me, some degree of control is essential.

Breaking down the pitch into sections would be perfect (it strikes me as so obvious i can only wonder why SI haven't already done it) i clearly don't want the same players taking all my set pieces, but FM doesn't allow any control over this. (interestingly, in my current save, my designated set piece taker flat out refuses to take free kicks - am going to post in the bugs forum at some point but was wondering if anybody had seen this before?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only problem when your a newcomer to FM08 and is having to reeducate yourself in the ambiguity of the games application. Each version of FM should be just that, a version, not a complete rewrite. I missed out on FM07 and after palying and testing FM08 for about a month now and into my 2nd season i have found that each team I play is more a collective rather than an individual team. Every manager seems to know the secret of the 4-2-4 when the need to use it no matter how accomplished or mentaly/tactically astute they are. The universal use of the word AI should be changed to that of 'computer' because that's who it feels you are playing against.

I mentioned on another thread an improvement, particulary for novices and that is the use of your assitant manager. Up to now what good does he actually do? If you programmed the a boot room to discussed tactics with your staff you'd be sat on your own - and there's were my problem is. When you first switch the game on your completely on your own regarding slider use and individual player instruction. Yes you can use the 'set to' option but this doesn't tell you anything either.

When you choose your assistant manager he should be able to give you HIS tactical opinion on your next game based on his very own abilities and mentality. Whether you take his advice is your choice and there's saying it'll work but at least you can pick things up a little quicker with more understand.

An example is I have been testing my assistant managers tactical nouse by using 'go on holiday' and running what you may call an parallel universe. Up to now he's got a better record than me in the games we have played. Only things is I cannot see how he set up his tactics in each game. Why is it such a secret seeing out the computer does it? Oh and one more thing, if you watch 2 computer teams playing you will never see a 4-2-4 formation. Even if one team is winning 1-0 with ten mins left! Yet, as i've discovered form numerous users, this happens all the time.

There is definately sommat they're not telling us.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">problem when your a newcomer to FM08 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll quite happily agree with this.

However i don't think 4-2-4 is a secret is it? Every manager IRL knows that when they're a goal down with 5 mins to go then they should push up.

The managers do behave differently based on their tactical knowledge, in my first season of my current save, i beat arsenal convincingly 4-0, the next time i played against them, wenger had changed the way he played sufficiently to make the game a MUCH closer contest. This contrasts to wigan, who despite getting slaughtered 5-0, did not change a thing and lost the next seasons game 6-0 despite my tactics not really changing.

I do however agree that the assman should do a lot more. Using the assman as some sort of tactical feedback would be perfect.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

But then in order to get the degree of flexibility that the sliders achieve, wouldn't you need substantially more options?

If, for example, mentality ONLY controlled where on the pitch the player played, then surely another set of sliders (or whatever we may have substituted tham for) would be needed to control direction of passing, tendancy to shoot etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We already have a passing slider, and options for setting direction of passing.

Mentality, for me, should be how attack-minded their decisions are.

Tendency to shoot should definitely be taken out of mentality.

The problem of bracketing lots of stuff into one slider is that it inherently limits tactical options.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, if these options had similar ambiguous knock-on effects to tempo, time wasting etc, then wouldn't we be back where we started, but with more sliders? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talking about adding sliders.

And I said the ambiguity should come from interactions, not the individual settings.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As it exists the ability for people to do what they want is there, some people just don't know this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with this. There's a whole heap of stuff you cannot do, as I have already said.

There are a few work-rounds that vaguely adress some of them, but it's not enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ched:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">problem when your a newcomer to FM08 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll quite happily agree with this.

However i don't think 4-2-4 is a secret is it? Every manager IRL knows that when they're a goal down with 5 mins to go then they should push up.

The managers do behave differently based on their tactical knowledge, in my first season of my current save, i beat arsenal convincingly 4-0, the next time i played against them, wenger had changed the way he played sufficiently to make the game a MUCH closer contest. This contrasts to wigan, who despite getting slaughtered 5-0, did not change a thing and lost the next seasons game 6-0 despite my tactics not really changing.

I do however agree that the assman should do a lot more. Using the assman as some sort of tactical feedback would be perfect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being new to FM08 thsi 4-2-4 is driving me mad. You can curse the AI like crazy, then realise there may have been something you could have done to solve the issue.

My biggest problem is the shots to goals ratio issue but this was occuring in FM06.

I find it strange that you have an assit-man but he does very little to assit you. Takes away all the meaning really.

May as well not have one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I did say that I'm not advocating a return to Wibble/Wobble. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you did. My apologies.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dave C:

I'd say Mentality, Tempo, Closing Down, Tackling, Creative Freedom could all be subject to different interpretations (read some of the posts on these forums to prove that), and all have effects on their own that transcend the pure meaning most would take. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Ambiguity in how an instruction will be interpreted is perfectly acceptable. So, for example, setting a player to a high degree of creative freedom should not result in exactly the same degree of CF every time (or, to put it another way, the sliders should not reflect a specific calibration of CF). Thus, the manager should have to monitor player performance and possibly make adjustments over the course of the game. But there should be no ambiguity over what creative freedom means.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Being new to FM08 thsi 4-2-4 is driving me mad. You can curse the AI like crazy, then realise there may have been something you could have done to solve the issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is, you can't just sit tight and hope to weather the storm. You have to make adjustments. I tend to go slightly more defensive, and if I don't already have "counterattacking" ticked, I tick it. But I also make sure I can generate some pressure on the AI's goal. I'd say I survive the 4-2-4 far more often than not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I find it strange that you have an assit-man but he does very little to assit you. Takes away all the meaning really.

May as well not have one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that the AM should have a greater role, including with tactics, but you have to be careful here because you don't want the game to fall into the pit of doing whatever the AM tells you. To me, the expanded role of the AM should be to give you greater insight into what is happening on the pitch ("their right back likes to push up, but has trouble tracking back") rather than what to do about it ("let's put some longballs in front of Nagurski out there"). And, the quality if the info should vary based on how good the AM is. This probably means that there should be a new coaching attribute, which I would call "reading the game".

to the gist, Dave C: I like the direction you're going with this. In particular your bit on Mentality, Tempo, and Missing Instructions spoke volumes to me.

I disagree with one section:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Zone of Operation

A big miss in terms of our tactical control is the inability to tell our players where we define their personal zone of play. We can set zonal marking, but not the zones. It's not just defensive situations this affects.

Offensively, we cannot make our striker stay central, our winger hug the touchline.

A simple way of doing this would be to set areas in which each player is to primarily operate.

The pitch can be broken into a grid, and we simply box in the squares to define operation. Using a system like this, allied to the defensive/offensive shape could replace individual mentality sliders.

The zone would influence who a player picks up, where he moves to in attacking situations, how narrow or wide he plays etc.

They wouldn't be set-in-stone, and things like creative freedom, free roles, team mentality etc would also have an affect on how much they roam from their box. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This bit actually was in Premier Manager '98, almost exactly as you described.

Though, of course, being the game that it was, players pretty much stuck to their box: you could force your entire squad to hug the touch-line if you wanted. Sadly, that tactic worked - the opposition wasn't smart enough not to pass into your ten-man-sideline.

When I first came to CM/FM, I really missed it.

However, now that I've "gotten into" FM-style tactics, I really don't. I think it was subject to the same sort of unrealism and micro-management objects that the FM community raised about Wib/Wob.

For example, what's the proper "box" for a fullback?

I can imagine him, at times, ranging everywhere from the middle of the pitch, at my penalty spot, to cover somebody, getting as wide as the touch-line, and getting forward as far as the opposition eighteen. I've just outlined something like half the pitch - and God knows, I wouldn't want him to stop tracking an opposition player just because that player ranged to the by-line in my half .. or to halt level with the eighteen because I hadn't given him "permission" to carry on to the by-line.

So, now he's got half the pitch, by-line to by-line .. and how is it useful for me to outline that?

...

The bit you were describing earlier as "Showing the position with and without ball" works for me - I'd love to be able to see "Zone to Mark in" for zonal defenders, and "Closing Down range" in defense as well ..

.. but I don't think I need to be able to set those explicitly.

To the issues you described, a tick-box "Stay central" or "hug touchline in attack" might be a less intrusive, more intuitive approach to those specific problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I agree that the AM should have a greater role, including with tactics, but you have to be careful here because you don't want the game to fall into the pit of doing whatever the AM tells you. To me, the expanded role of the AM should be to give you greater insight into what is happening on the pitch ("their right back likes to push up, but has trouble tracking back") rather than what to do about it ("let's put some longballs in front of Nagurski out there"). And, the quality if the info should vary based on how good the AM is. This probably means that there should be a new coaching attribute, which I would call "reading the game". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The AM assistance can be as little or as large as FM would like you to have or maybe as much as you select. Maybe if your new to the game you could make a selection of how much info the AM can give you. Maybe a novice or expert during the selection stage at the beginning of the game. What I want to add is the quality for the AM should certainly be taken into account. Obviously, an AM with little tactical knowledge would be completely pointless. Also if he has a defensive mentally, his opinion may not be useful if you need to win a game.

As I mentioned before, whilst testing my AM using the ’go on holiday’ he’s been undefeated, but alas I’ve know idea how he’s doing it…and I’m his boss.

Bet he’s after my job!!

Great post.

Sliders are killing this game for me.

I managed to win the league and the Champions League, but it wasn't fun at all. I've no idea how to get my players to play the way I want. I'd much rather finish 2nd or 3rd playing my way than as I do at the moment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scath:

Great post.

Sliders are killing this game for me.

I managed to win the league and the Champions League, but it wasn't fun at all. I've no idea how to get my players to play the way I want. I'd much rather finish 2nd or 3rd playing my way than as I do at the moment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

excellent point. I'm from the days of FM06 and it took me two years to work out a way to play that like enjoyed.

Now it's like i'm starting from stratch will the same application. The way my team played on FM06 would hammer Arsenal passing game IRL. But cannot get 'em playing the same way on '08.

God darn it!!

This is good stuff - and agree with most of it tbh. Tempo is one I always think should be variable per player or 'part' of the team - ie. your defense and midfield could be slow to medium build up, then your attack is quick and one touch - much like Man U tend to be with Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez up front.

Passing targets I agree with as with arrows - should be allowed multiple choices for attack and defense.

What I think would be useful - I personally have raised this type of issue and seen others too - is the better ass man role and also a 'play testing' thingy (as you used to get in FPS FBPro American Football game years ago) so you don't have to use 'real' matches to try out tactics - enabling you to have a training game style of tactic rehearsal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What I think would be useful - I personally have raised this type of issue and seen others too - is the better ass man role and also a 'play testing' thingy (as you used to get in FPS FBPro American Football game years ago) so you don't have to use 'real' matches to try out tactics - enabling you to have a training game style of tactic rehearsal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, sometimes what i do to get round this is set up a friendly against my reserves or youth team if I've a least a week between games. gives me a chance to try things out a shows me how good my kids are at the same time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mentality

I'd personally rather have systems as set above, plus a team mentality slider.

But if we were keeping both, I still think changes are needed. Currently, we can set team and individual mentalities, and the individual ones override the team setting.

I don't think this is the intuitive interpretation.

Individual mentality should constitute how the player plays within the overall system. So rather than overriding team settings, they work in conjunction.

This would allow you to easily adjust mentality, in a match or between matches, using one slider, not potentially altering eleven. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was just thinking about this myself. If it's possible I'd like to have the ability to 'peg' my player's individual sliders to the team one. So if I use graduated mentalities instead of having to change all o fthem simultaneously I could move the team slider and all player sliders would move by the same amount.

I was going to post on this myself but I might as well add it here. I'd like to see the dual nature of the mentality slider removed as I don't like how the slider affects both position and player behaviour. For example if I want my striker to drop deep and pick up the ball I need to alter his mentality, but in doing that I alter his decision making process. So if I have a pacy striker who I want to drop deep and have him 'attack' the defense by running at them it appears to me that by lowering his mentality it seems to reduce the likelihood of him making an 'attacking' decision.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Tempo

Tempo is a confusing instruction that influences far more than it should.

Tempo should NOT affect my striker's finishing.

Tempo should dictate how quickly we move the ball around, nothing more. How quickly the team moves to attacking scenarios should be controlled by other settings like mentality.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100%. I'd also like to see individual tempo settings given the way they appear to behave (I know nothing of the code and can only judge on observation so I could be wrong). The reason being is that in real life football teams often increase their tempo as they build from the back. Now whether or not this is a tactical instruction by the manager or natural inclinations/abilities of players I don't know. But as it stands I can't do this in FM as the slider affects player behaviour regardless of where they are on the pitch. So if I have high tempo defenders will more than likely get rid of the ball quickly even when they have a decent amount of space to move into.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Missing Instructions

Okay, where's my "Make overlapping runs" box for my full-backs?

Where's my "Drop off" instruction for forwards?

Where's my "Cut inside" instruction?

Where's my "Stay on the last defender" instruction?

Where's my "Run at the defender" instruction? (Run with ball doesn't tell the player to take players on, and I want my strikers to push into the box, not just shoot from 18-20 yards)

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many people will argue that all of these things are already achievable with the slider system, but I would suggest to make it more intuitive they could introduce a GUI layer above the current slider system so that selecting said options automatically produce the desired behaviour much like using the 'preset player instructions'. This way it wouldn't require an overwrite of the match engine (I fully accept I could be oversimplifying it). Unfortunately I doubt SI will do this anytime soon as I have a recollection of someone posting that the manual should explain the tactical settings in more detail (I think it was in the first impressions of FM08 thread) and someone from SI replying that figuring out what the sliders etc. do is part of the gaming experience.

to all of the other suggestions.