can we just try to sum up what we would like to see added tacticly

theres a lot of ideas going about.

i think the main ones are individual playing instuctions; passing, moving etc

instructing a player to be more specific with his game

theres a lot of ideas going about.

i think the main ones are individual playing instuctions; passing, moving etc

instructing a player to be more specific with his game

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">instructing a player to be more specific with his game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the main complaints about the game is that you already have to be TOO specific.

Personally, I wouldn't mind, but you can bet it won't be popular with everyone.

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

theres a lot of ideas going about.

i think the main ones are individual playing instuctions; passing, moving etc

instructing a player to be more specific with his game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just 'summing up' into a sentence that is just a generalisation is almost meaningless.

Lots of people come on here saying they want 'more of this' and 'more of that' and 'less of the other', without giving any indication of exactly what it is they actually want.

i would like an option to make game easier. as i think game has got so much harder now, maybe most people can spend 10 hours a day on game to tweak with there tactics, but i like prob a lot of people can only fit a hour in i at most. prob play about 5 hours a week, so dont have time to play with tactics during match. as i only use commentry on most games and key highlights on major games. so unlike some who prob actually watch whole match (which if you ask me is rather sad) i dont have time to do.

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

i would like an option to make game easier. as i think game has got so much harder now, maybe most people can spend 10 hours a day on game to tweak with there tactics, but i like prob a lot of people can only fit a hour in i at most. prob play about 5 hours a week, so dont have time to play with tactics during match. as i only use commentry on most games and key highlights on major games. so unlike some who prob actually watch whole match (which if you ask me is rather sad) i dont have time to do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A perfect example of what I was talking about. "I would like an option to make game easier", with lots of reasons why they want it but not one suggestion of how they think it should be done.

I think people have many good sugestions thesedays on various forums. I hope guys from SI do take a look at them.

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

I think people have many good sugestions thesedays on various forums. I hope guys from SI do take a look at them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They read all of them, but some people seem to think they should get a personal reply from SI every time they suggest something...so they start to say that SI aren't reading them. SI can't win.

if they read them or at least some of them, then it's OK. even better if they consider some.

I don't think anyone mentioned SI here, except me. all I would want is the game to improve. tacticly, the game hasn't changed for quite some time, now. I hope every year they can bring smth fresh, but...

Something I'd like Taken away as apposed to added;

Fifteen slider positions.

5 is enough (perhaps 7 at a stretch).

Eg:

ULTRA DEFENSIVE - DEFENSIVE - NORMAL - ATTACKING - GUNG HO

VERY SHORT PASSING - SHORT - MIXED - DIRECT - LONG

VERY DEEP DEFENCE - DEEP - NORMAL - PUSH UP - AGGRESSIVE PRESSING

I mean, it really is bloody simple, why won't SI wise up and simplify tactical settings?

I would like the corners/freekicks to be more complex.

Corners I would like to be able to position where my players stand before the corner is taken. E.g where I want my defensive mid to sit about 30 yrds outside the box centrally to try and get any half arsed clearences. Where my defenders would be sat just on the half way line to combat a counter attack etc.

For attacking freekicks I would like an option where you can set more specifically what happens. For me freekicks are lacking the most in the game. So many times my players pass the ball when 20-5yrds out. The only way I have been able to combat this to a very small extent is to set the kickers long shots to often but I dont want him to be having a dig at goal during the game as more often than not they go high and wide. I would like to be able to say what the kicker would do in a certain freekick situation. Such as say 20-5 yrds central directly shoot always/mixed/cross to - centre,far post, etc/lay-off. Then L/R side cross to centre etc.

An idea on the "make the game tactically easier" thought - I would love to see some sort of common sense model applied to the players on the pitch. I will elaborate:

A lot of complaints with regards to the tactics stems from the fact that people can't just build one tactic to suit their needs. I feel in many respects the tactical side is far too broad , and without these forums I certainly wouldn't have been able to build up succesful tactics in FM08. Whilst I have a tactic to build up attacks more slowly than my default tactic, or to stretch the game, I feel it's a little over-elaborate. As a real manager, I'd more than likely be telling my players to drop the tempo, and try and work the openings, I wouldn't be telling the players that they should play 25% slower and 10% wider.

Perhaps there could be an option in the club settings which allows the manager to delegate match day tactical adjustments to the assistant manager. In practice, this would see the assistant manager make those small changes depending on the circumstances of the match (e.g. he'll set your full backs mentality more defensive when the opposition changes to a 4-2-4, or he'll get the players to slow down the tempo and stretch the game when the opposition are reduced to 10 men). By having this as a tickable option it will allow some players to get away with setting up a singular tactic (or perhaps more a tactical philosophy for a certain formation), whilst other players can continue to make a series of contingency tactics and make the changes they see necessary. Similarly, by using the normal in-game tactics screen you would be able to override the Assistant Manager's decisions if you felt, for example, that you'd rather turn the screw at 2-0 instead of settling for that margin.

Whilst this feature could help some gamers learn how to build and execute contingency tactics effectively, it could also help those who just don't feel that all the tweaking is necessary.

yea there should be an option to let your assistant manager make tactical tweaks.

and regens have gotta be sorted out aswell.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Starr_Man5:

Something I'd like Taken away as apposed to added;

Fifteen slider positions.

5 is enough (perhaps 7 at a stretch).

Eg:

ULTRA DEFENSIVE - DEFENSIVE - NORMAL - ATTACKING - GUNG HO

VERY SHORT PASSING - SHORT - MIXED - DIRECT - LONG

VERY DEEP DEFENCE - DEEP - NORMAL - PUSH UP - AGGRESSIVE PRESSING

I mean, it really is bloody simple, why won't SI wise up and simplify tactical settings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love you.

I really don't think reducing the number of notches is good idea, at least not to some minimum number, like 5. it would feel like someone said on these forums, like eating pills instead of food. if you think notches represent some percent: 1%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%....leaving us with only 5 notches; 1%, 20%, 40%... doesn't sound very wise to me.

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

I really don't think reducing the number of notches is good idea, at least not to some minimum number, like 5. it would feel like someone said on these forums, like eating pills instead of food. if you think notches represent some percent: 1%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%....leaving us with only 5 notches; 1%, 20%, 40%... doesn't sound very wise to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or to turn it round:

Notches would represent a NUMBER:

1 = 1

2 = 2

3 = 3

4 = 4

5 = 5.

Again, simple.

And far more realistic imho.

At the minute there are sliders for (thinking...)

Mentality (20 positions)

Creative Freedom (20 Positions)

Passing Style (20 Positions)

Tempo (20 positions)

Defensive Line (20 positions)

Width (20 Positions)

Time wasting (20 Positions)

Closing down (20 Positions)

Tackling (3 Positions)

(And I'm not even taking into account the "other" ones - focus passing and what not!!)

Now I'm not a mathematician, but eight 20's and one 3 =

20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 3 = A number too big for my calculator to show.

I'm not exactly sure of the exact equation to work out how many possible tactical set-ups there are, but lets say they can be numbered 1 to (a very big number).

How on earth is it possible to know the difference, if any, between tactic set 1298 and 1299?

Will there even BE a difference?

Will it be completely different?

Will the game (ie your Assistant Manager) even have the good grace to tell you?

No he will not.

There are, in my opinion, FAR too many different tactical settings to notice the difference between one or the other, and this is where many managers fall flat, much to their, and my , frustrations.

I think it is very clear that the tactical side of the game needs a complete over-haul.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Starr_Man5:

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

I really don't think reducing the number of notches is good idea, at least not to some minimum number, like 5. it would feel like someone said on these forums, like eating pills instead of food. if you think notches represent some percent: 1%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%....leaving us with only 5 notches; 1%, 20%, 40%... doesn't sound very wise to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or to turn it round:

Notches would represent a NUMBER:

1 = 1

2 = 2

3 = 3

4 = 4

5 = 5.

Again, simple.

And far more realistic imho.

At the minute there are sliders for (thinking...)

Mentality (20 positions)

Creative Freedom (20 Positions)

Passing Style (20 Positions)

Tempo (20 positions)

Defensive Line (20 positions)

Width (20 Positions)

Time wasting (20 Positions)

Closing down (20 Positions)

Tackling (3 Positions)

(And I'm not even taking into account the "other" ones - focus passing and what not!!)

Now I'm not a mathematician, but eight 20's and one 3 =

20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 3 = A number too big for my calculator to show.

I'm not exactly sure of the exact equation to work out how many possible tactical set-ups there are, but lets say they can be numbered 1 to (a very big number).

How on earth is it possible to know the difference, if any, between tactic set 1298 and 1299?

Will there even BE a difference?

Will it be completely different?

Will the game (ie your Assistant Manager) even have the good grace to tell you?

No he will not.

There are, in my opinion, FAR too many different tactical settings to notice the difference between one or the other, and this is where many managers fall flat, much to their, and my , frustrations.

I think it is very clear that the tactical side of the game needs a complete over-haul. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen.

With the 20 notches we have 2 scenarios, neithr of which work:

1) If each notch (of 20) has a discernible and obvious difference when viewing the match then that means the difference between notches is not properly represented by each notch being a 5% change.

2) If each notch is actually very subtle (as 20 would suggest) then it makes it almost impossible to discern the differences between notches on the pitch and therefore made educated decisions.

SI have remarkably possibly made it more complicated to put across tactical ideas in a GAME than it is in real life.

The challenge of FM isnt because we have a battle of tactical wills, its because you first have to work out what the hell everything does before you can even contemplate the footballing side of things.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Starr_Man5:

20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 3 = A number too big for my calculator to show.

I'm not exactly sure of the exact equation to work out how many possible tactical set-ups there are, but lets say they can be numbered 1 to (a very big number). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incidentally, that gives 77,400,000,000 (77.4 billion) different possibilities

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

I really don't think reducing the number of notches is good idea, at least not to some minimum number, like 5. it would feel like someone said on these forums, like eating pills instead of food. if you think notches represent some percent: 1%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%....leaving us with only 5 notches; 1%, 20%, 40%... doesn't sound very wise to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on the notch- after all some like defensive line need 20 notches, but representing it by a slider is a bad idea.

How do you think a real life manager will show his players where he wants them to defend? He will show them on the pitch (some use rope even) or on the tactics board- so why havent SI represented this graphically? Its been suggested many, many times for a few years too.

This could be extended to starting position at setpieces too as where players defend from at setpieces seems to be random.

What annoys me most about the tactical side is that even though its complicated its not actually very powerful at all.

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Starr_Man5:

20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 3 = A number too big for my calculator to show.

I'm not exactly sure of the exact equation to work out how many possible tactical set-ups there are, but lets say they can be numbered 1 to (a very big number). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incidentally, that gives 77,400,000,000 (77.4 billion) different possibilities </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there you have it.

And as for George Graham's comments there on tactical changes not being very powerful at all, I totally agree.

When we make tactical changes we should be able to clearly see the changes happen on the pitch.

And I don't mean being told that the tactics have taken place; I mean if I'm instructing my players to "Play short passing" then I expect to see them playing short passes. Then if I switch to "Direct/long" then I want to see them continually pumping the ball upfield.

When I make these changes in the game, I honestly can't really SEE the difference between one or the other.

I really don't care, the idea that there are SEVENTY-SEVEN BILLION, FOUR HUNDRED MILLION different tactical settings is, frankly, stupid.

just choosing "defensive" "normal" sliders would irritate me, i like how it is...........the key is too have your players rhythmically close

in theory, for me 1st notch of passing slider meens (or at least should meen) that I give my instruction to player to play short passes only/if possible.

6th ontch of that same slider: instruction to a player to play short passes mostly, but also direct/long if necessery.

10th notch: any pass

20th: long passes only

everybody seems to agree that sliders aren't good and that tactical system needs to change. but nobody wrote any idea or any more in-depth idea how they should be changed (well George did with whiteboards).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Starr_Man5:

And I don't mean being told that the tactics have taken place; I mean if I'm instructing my players to "Play short passing" then I expect to see them playing short passes. Then if I switch to "Direct/long" then I want to see them continually pumping the ball upfield.

When I make these changes in the game, I honestly can't really SEE the difference between one or the other.

I really don't care, the idea that there are SEVENTY-SEVEN BILLION, FOUR HUNDRED MILLION different tactical settings is, frankly, stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's a whole different story. and I totally agree. not to mention that after all these years we don't really know (see on the pitch) effect of creative freedom slider, or understand time wasting. at least I don't.

I would like to see more variation with the free role option, maybe make it a three-way slider for roaming: Never-Sometimes-Always. An idea like this could go alongside or be incorporated with an equivilant of an individual width slider.

I agree with the calls for 7 way sliders instead of 20 way ones, though I would like to see the 3 way sliders expanded to 5 way.

Surely GK's should have a wholey individual set of sliders too.

I would also like more options with positions too (following on from my position roaming idea). It's very hard to get players exactly where you (or I) want them, particularly since it seems so important in modern football and FM to get your creative players into space.

And of course, players themselves should use more common sense.

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

i would like an option to make game easier. as i think game has got so much harder now, maybe most people can spend 10 hours a day on game to tweak with there tactics, but i like prob a lot of people can only fit a hour in i at most. prob play about 5 hours a week, so dont have time to play with tactics during match. as i only use commentry on most games and key highlights on major games. so unlike some who prob actually watch whole match (which if you ask me is rather sad) i dont have time to do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think one of the good things about FM is that you cant adjust the difficulty. Just my opinion.

Not being able to adjust the difficulty is far. And it gives you a great sense of achievement when you win.

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

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

theres a lot of ideas going about.

i think the main ones are individual playing instuctions; passing, moving etc

instructing a player to be more specific with his game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just 'summing up' into a sentence that is just a generalisation is almost meaningless.

Lots of people come on here saying they want 'more of this' and 'more of that' and 'less of the other', without giving any indication of exactly what it is they actually want. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this comment was about as meaningless as the title (according to you)

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

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

i would like an option to make game easier. as i think game has got so much harder now, maybe most people can spend 10 hours a day on game to tweak with there tactics, but i like prob a lot of people can only fit a hour in i at most. prob play about 5 hours a week, so dont have time to play with tactics during match. as i only use commentry on most games and key highlights on major games. so unlike some who prob actually watch whole match (which if you ask me is rather sad) i dont have time to do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A perfect example of what I was talking about. "I would like an option to make game easier", with lots of reasons why they want it but not one suggestion of how they think it should be done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if i knew how it could be coded in i would freaking be a millionare programing my own games. altough anybody with an ounce of a brain would see (I WOULD LIKE AN OPTION TO MAKE GAME EASIER) an option means to me that in the drop down menu there would be a choice of easy medium or hard

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

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

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

i would like an option to make game easier. as i think game has got so much harder now, maybe most people can spend 10 hours a day on game to tweak with there tactics, but i like prob a lot of people can only fit a hour in i at most. prob play about 5 hours a week, so dont have time to play with tactics during match. as i only use commentry on most games and key highlights on major games. so unlike some who prob actually watch whole match (which if you ask me is rather sad) i dont have time to do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A perfect example of what I was talking about. "I would like an option to make game easier", with lots of reasons why they want it but not one suggestion of how they think it should be done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if i knew how it could be coded in i would freaking be a millionare programing my own games. altough anybody with an ounce of a brain would see (I WOULD LIKE AN OPTION TO MAKE GAME EASIER) an option means to me that in the drop down menu there would be a choice of easy medium or hard </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How would you exactly determine what gets classified as easy, medium or hard?

I think its a daft idea TBH.

just make the ai not so inteligant, altough not so you win every game. be a bit more forgiving if your tactics are not spot on, or just so that u dont get sacked if ur fulham and your in the bottom 4 with 10 games still to go. look at moyes at everton in fm he would never have survived, he has had a good season this year dodgy last good year before. they have done something with the game fm 05,06 and 07 i could do well, but this one i find hard to win a game so just tone down what it is they boosted.

i know there are a lot of people who wont like it but they dont have to use it.

how about a player interaction/motivation during match(not halftime). like when fergie taps a finger beneath his eye at rio ferdinand when he seems to be falling asleep, just to ask for more concentration. Not sure how this would work. hopefully someone can develop it. like if you use it too much your players get sick of you. there could be "where's the movement" to your striker or "we need more running" to a lazy DM.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Starr_Man5:

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Starr_Man5:

20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 3 = A number too big for my calculator to show.

I'm not exactly sure of the exact equation to work out how many possible tactical set-ups there are, but lets say they can be numbered 1 to (a very big number). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incidentally, that gives 77,400,000,000 (77.4 billion) different possibilities </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there you have it.

And as for George Graham's comments there on tactical changes not being very powerful at all, I totally agree.

When we make tactical changes we should be able to clearly see the changes happen on the pitch.

And I don't mean being told that the tactics have taken place; I mean if I'm instructing my players to "Play short passing" then I expect to see them playing short passes. Then if I switch to "Direct/long" then I want to see them continually pumping the ball upfield.

When I make these changes in the game, I honestly can't really SEE the difference between one or the other.

I really don't care, the idea that there are SEVENTY-SEVEN BILLION, FOUR HUNDRED MILLION different tactical settings is, frankly, stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That puzzles me too that the passing style we choose is not obviously shown my the 2D, the same goes for tempo- the change may or may not be effective but your hard pressed to visually see the changes.

IMO SI need to move away from us having to pretty much tell our players how to play- when irl a lot of this is drilled in during training.

Should we really need to tell International defenders when to close down or mark tightly? No- thats why they cost so much, because they instinctively make the right decisions. Whereas in FM if we dont tell them they just dont think for themselves.

Case in point was where my Spurs side who were 2nd in the league allowed Rooney to score a hat-trick in 20 mins as not one of them thought "ooh, maybe I should close down or mark this world class striker", as they stood off him because I hadnt got my tactics just right.

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

just make the ai not so inteligant, altough not so you win every game. be a bit more forgiving if your tactics are not spot on, or just so that u dont get sacked if ur fulham and your in the bottom 4 with 10 games still to go. look at moyes at everton in fm he would never have survived, he has had a good season this year dodgy last good year before. they have done something with the game fm 05,06 and 07 i could do well, but this one i find hard to win a game so just tone down what it is they boosted.

i know there are a lot of people who wont like it but they dont have to use it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree as all AI managers regardless of who they are seem to get it right.

What really annoys me is the way a good tactic can become in-effective as you get more success.

Now I can understand that as I get better teams will play more defensively, but this shouldnt mean that just because you fail to break them down that your normally solid tactic will start to get beaten by sucker punches from far inferior teams. Yet in FM unless you adopt a more expansive style then you will keep getting suckered.

I dont know where SI get there ideas about how football works, but they seem to have forgotten that generally the teams with the best players will rise to the top, not so in FM if you dont get your tactics, media and teamtalks spot on as it just feels that there is no margin for error whatsoever.

Add to that the lack of feedback and you have a game that isnt enjoyable anymore.

Further to the above- anybody notice that the AI managers benefit from collective intelligence, as the point your good tactic becomes ineffective is when every bloody team starts using the same one against you.

Cue, you change yours and start winning again.

Yawn.

I Just dont see why we cant directly tell our players to keep the ball, or be patient, maybe spread play etc.

Then theres teamtalks where we should be able to say tell a Winger that he can beat his man all day, or his crossing is poor.

The opposition instruction screen is a good example of the kind of instructions we need- as they ape perfectly the language a real manager would use, although knowing my luck FM09 will replace this with sliders.

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Starr_Man5:

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Starr_Man5:

20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 3 = A number too big for my calculator to show.

I'm not exactly sure of the exact equation to work out how many possible tactical set-ups there are, but lets say they can be numbered 1 to (a very big number). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incidentally, that gives 77,400,000,000 (77.4 billion) different possibilities </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there you have it.

And as for George Graham's comments there on tactical changes not being very powerful at all, I totally agree.

When we make tactical changes we should be able to clearly see the changes happen on the pitch.

And I don't mean being told that the tactics have taken place; I mean if I'm instructing my players to "Play short passing" then I expect to see them playing short passes. Then if I switch to "Direct/long" then I want to see them continually pumping the ball upfield.

When I make these changes in the game, I honestly can't really SEE the difference between one or the other.

I really don't care, the idea that there are SEVENTY-SEVEN BILLION, FOUR HUNDRED MILLION different tactical settings is, frankly, stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That puzzles me too that the passing style we choose is not obviously shown my the 2D, the same goes for tempo- the change may or may not be effective but your hard pressed to visually see the changes.

IMO SI need to move away from us having to pretty much tell our players how to play- when irl a lot of this is drilled in during training.

Should we really need to tell International defenders when to close down or mark tightly? No- thats why they cost so much, because they instinctively make the right decisions. Whereas in FM if we dont tell them they just dont think for themselves.

Case in point was where my Spurs side who were 2nd in the league allowed Rooney to score a hat-trick in 20 mins as not one of them thought "ooh, maybe I should close down or mark this world class striker", as they stood off him because I hadnt got my tactics just right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly. there are just too many combinations that need to be set up corectly. if they're not a disaster will happen more often than not. but it seems that AI doesn't suffer from that problem. AI allways knows what to do, perfectly.

one exaple: players moving forward. now we have to consider FR, mentality, tempo, arrows. and all the variables from these 4 sliders. isn't that suppose to be influnced by player ability for going forward- attributes and team playing style- mentality. it's absolutly ridicoulus to see a player with his poor work rate and stamina attributes running all day long like Gattuso, only becouse he's set so. player ability should count more.

there are just too many things you have "to teach", to set instructions with your EPL standard players. they should act more like humans (pro players) not robots (even if this is a computer game).

tactics should be simplified but at the same time give us more real life tools- specific player instructions, roles. for example I want Cesc to play a box-to-box midfielder role. easy, I tick him with "come deep for the ball" and "get into opp area" instructions. I want Evra to play overlapping fullback role, I tick him with "get forward as soon as possible" and maybe "hug line" instructions. when I play against players like Cristiano I want to be able to say to double mark or even tripple mark him. we can probably do it now also, with various slider combinations, but wouldn't it be nice I can just tick him in opp instructions with "double mark player" instruction.

team sliders would still remain as they are but we would have control over our players with detailed and specific player instrctions. not slider combinations. but the most important thing should be player ability to do a specific task and his current form.

It's also worth pointing out that "tempo" is awfully flawed. There are players that just can't play at certain tempos.

Watch Aston Villa. The much maligned Stilyan Petrov is one of few players who actually knows how to play at a slow pace, and take the sting out of a game (something that we seem to forget to do when under considerably pressure), but the game seemingly passes him by when we're playing our swift counter-attacking game. Similarly, Gabriel Agbonlahor, seems completely unable to play any other way than quick and direct, even when the game situation requires him to hold play up. In their current capacities, it would lead me to suggest that Petrov can't handle quick tempo football, and Agbonlahor can't handle slow tempo football.

This however, isn't replicated in the game. Instead, you set a team tempo, and the players' attributes fit around that setting. So a player like Stilyan Petrov with reasonable attributes for passing, technique, workrate, etc... actually suits the quick game quite well. I honestly don't know how you'd implement it, but the sense of individual rhythm (which would link in with adaptability/versatility) is something which is fundamentally lacking. The flip side of this, of course, is that a player who can adjust to many tempo's (like Gareth Barry) becomes a much more valuable player for those who play with a set of different tactics depending on the match circumstances.

(All apologies for the Villa analogies, but as they are "my" team, they are the players I watch the most)

in FM words the most accurate wax of implanting stuff like that are PPMs. this kind of stuff would be hard to put in the game, IMO.

-stilian petrov: "stops play" and maybe "plays short passes"

-gabriel agbonlahor: "gets forward whenever possible" (doesn't have the patiente for more build up play), not the best option but anyway...

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

in FM words the most accurate wax of implanting stuff like that are PPMs. this kind of stuff would be hard to put in the game, IMO.

-stilian petrov: "stops play" and maybe "plays short passes"

-gabriel agbonlahor: "gets forward whenever possible" (doesn't have the patiente for more build up play), not the best option but anyway... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely, I think it would be nigh on impossible to implement personal tempo's and agree with your assessment.

However, and going back to Petrov, the issue is that neither of those PPM's are accurate. I would genuinely say "Dictates Tempo" is true of his play. It's just he dictates play at a different tempo to the rest of the team. I guess it would perhaps work alongside "Dwells on Ball". For Agbonlahor, they need to bring in a new PPM "Plays with a continual sense of urgency".

The only other thing I'd like to mention is, that despite all the flaws, I am considerably happier with the current tactic model than I was with those in the (old) Championship Manager series. I used to be a lot more successful, but I never felt like I had any real sort of control. In the current model, I can achieve what I set out to, but I have to occasionally defy what would otherwise seem logical to get to this level.

lets be fair here though.

the preferred moves for each player actually works well and is noticeable.

and lets not forget that when you instruct a team or player to play a certain way they are not going to do it absolutely every single time, that would not be realistic and the type of individual would effect this.

but i still think that there isnt a noticeable enough difference in fm between, eg: playing bolton or arsenal.

do you really get bombarded with long balls and have to defend long throws when you play bolton.

can you really identifie senderos as weak in the air and so encourage kevin davies to capatilise on this.

can you really encourage ivan campo to hit long bballs from deep towards a specific target man, like davies at every opportunitie.

the answer is no not really!

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

It's also worth pointing out that "tempo" is awfully flawed. There are players that just can't play at certain tempos.

Watch Aston Villa. The much maligned Stilyan Petrov is one of few players who actually knows how to play at a slow pace, and take the sting out of a game (something that we seem to forget to do when under considerably pressure), but the game seemingly passes him by when we're playing our swift counter-attacking game. Similarly, Gabriel Agbonlahor, seems completely unable to play any other way than quick and direct, even when the game situation requires him to hold play up. In their current capacities, it would lead me to suggest that Petrov can't handle quick tempo football, and Agbonlahor can't handle slow tempo football.

This however, isn't replicated in the game. Instead, you set a team tempo, and the players' attributes fit around that setting. So a player like Stilyan Petrov with reasonable attributes for passing, technique, workrate, etc... actually suits the quick game quite well. I honestly don't know how you'd implement it, but the sense of individual rhythm (which would link in with adaptability/versatility) is something which is fundamentally lacking. The flip side of this, of course, is that a player who can adjust to many tempo's (like Gareth Barry) becomes a much more valuable player for those who play with a set of different tactics depending on the match circumstances.

(All apologies for the Villa analogies, but as they are "my" team, they are the players I watch the most) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but if you want petrov to play quicker you just set him to more attacking mentality, short/direct passing style, set where you want him to run when the team has possesion.

he will do this. but he will also play his style as well.

this is fine, thats the sort of player he is, thats why you buy players who fit your style.

what fm could add to encourage a certain player to play your style MORE is things like;

"look to paly one twos with"

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

but if you want petrov to play quicker you just set him to more attacking mentality, short/direct passing style, set where you want him to run when the team has possesion.

he will do this. but he will also play his style as well.

this is fine, thats the sort of player he is, thats why you buy players who fit your style.

what fm could add to encourage a certain player to play your style MORE is things like;

"look to paly one twos with" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My apologies, I think I wasn't clear with what I was trying to say. In this example, I am using Petrov as an example of a player who in real life doesn't appear to be able to adapt to the pace of Villa's play. He, as a player, likes time on the ball and space. He will play at a slower tempo and be happy to pass sideways or backwards. Subsequently he has been panned (not necessarily rightly) by fellow Villa fans for not being able to play at the pace of the premiership.

In the game, on the other hand, this is not an issue, because quite rightly, he has a sufficient standard of ability when it comes to passing, technique, workrate, etc... that he, like all other players in the game, can play at any tempo. What i was implying, is that players should somehow (and I realise there is pretty much no way possible that this could be implemented ever) have a tempo attribute, which would tie in with their adaptability/versatility attributes. There are a number of players who, regardless of their ability, will never succeed in the Premiership because they can't play at the high-tempo. Similarly, there are players who can't play in Spain because they can't handle the patient, slower tempo.

there are probably many more examples of real life things which would be hard to put in to work properly. for example; we see many times during matches how managers is suggesting to his defenders that they are lying too deep and he's trying to push them forward. the problem is that players would actually like to push Dline up, but opponents are making pressure on them. maangers can't just push the button. so, all we have in the game is Dline slider and players will listen to us more often than not. there are things that just can't be implemented so easily, IMO.