Tactic/Formation Familiarity Questions

Hi all,

This bothered me last year a little as well, I personally can't grasp the idea of the way the formation/tactic is "learnt". So last year I do believe it took around 12 games for your team to become familiar with your tactics. I presume it's around the same again this year? But my biggest issue with it is, it seems any change you make has a big effect on how familiar the players are.

I could understand going from very high pressing to no pressing or the other way around. Of course that's a big change. But when you make some minor changes or add/remove player instructions (can someone confirm if player instructions effects this?) and it has an effect, it does kind of bother me.

The way tactics are done now is done to encourage you to tweak things more. But it then punishes you for tweaking by making your players less familiar with what you are doing. So it means that if my tactic during pre-season wasn't working, then I am basically screwed going into the season. It was a bigger issue last year since it was completely new. But even still, there is no perfect tactic anymore, so why is the familiarity thing such a big deal?

It seems that any tactic you put is awkward. There is not starting guidelines to get a familiar tactic right away. I don't understand this. You should be given what the previous manager was doing or what the players are already comfortable with and then make changes from there. Having to start from scratch to emulate the teams actual playing style just makes no sense to me.

Also with all the new player roles they've been adding, changing those has an effect as well. There are so many player specific roles now that the players on your bench are unlikely to match the ones on the pitch. I don't understand how this is such a big issue as well. My left wingers are Cazorla and Podolski (I'm Arsenal). Cazorla is an IF and Podolski would be a winger/raumdeuter. But making that change for some reason cause a negative effect on the familiarity. Which is not right.

The best managers in the world change their tactics based on who they are playing (obviously Wenger doesn't, but that's another issue in itself). So why does the game seem to punish you for making these tactical changes?

Should I be setting up 3 tactics from the very beginning? But won't that mean they take longer to learn and how do I have time to see if all 3 tactics are even working? Don't get me wrong, I love all the options for making a tactic. I just find the familiarity thing a major issue in the system. There needs to be like a middle starting ground, not just rock bottom. I could understand if I took over at United and I tried to do Van Gaal and change the system completely. That takes time. But playing as Arsenal and using the same system as Wenger (more or less). How is that awkward familiarity?

I think I've rambled enough. What is the best way to go? Should I have more than 1 tactic? Should I have 2 or 3? Should they be similar but different roles, 1 counter, 1 control, and then 1 completely different? I can't seem to grasp what to do. I want to be able to adjust as per the opposition, but I feel like the game punishes you for this.

I mean, what is the point of training a formation for 12 friendlies to play the first game of the season to find out it's actually awful?

Personally, I don't set up 3 tactics right at the start. I only set up 1. The enables the team to get to grips with only one tactic. I'll put the maximum match training to tactics only. I only do 4-5 friendlies. If I need to make changes to TIs something else, I do it. It's more important having a coherent tactic than a fluid bad one. Anyway, with one tactic, they learn quick. Once one is done, I'll introduce the others.

Personally, I don't set up 3 tactics right at the start. I only set up 1. The enables the team to get to grips with only one tactic. I'll put the maximum match training to tactics only. I only do 4-5 friendlies. If I need to make changes to TIs something else, I do it. It's more important having a coherent tactic than a fluid bad one. Anyway, with one tactic, they learn quick. Once one is done, I'll introduce the others.

How do you counter the different player roles? Do I limit the better players by using them in a more basic role or do I risk my lesser players playing awful by having them operate a role they aren't good at?

For example at the moment I am playing this:

But my subs won't match that. ST sub is Giroud, LW sub is Podolski, RW is Chamberlain, CAM is Rosicky. The players are not really able to just go into the same setup if one gets injured or needs a rest or pre-season match fitness.

What do you mean "counter the different player roles"? Changing roles won't affect your familiarity.

What do you mean "counter the different player roles"? Changing roles won't affect your familiarity.

I was under the impression that changing the player roles did have an effect on familiarity?

The impacts of Tactical Familiarity have been quite significantly reduced for FM15.

The simplest solution of all is to play FMC (No tactical familiarity in FMC)

I was under the impression that changing the player roles did have an effect on familiarity?

It doesn't, but you can check for yourself. I'm of the opinion that a good tactic > familiarity , so make the changes you need to.

Edit: Ignore RTH and his FMC sales pitch.

Player roles don't impact familiarity but player instructions do.

As noted the best approach is to start with one tactic, learn it fully, then implement others. Yes, you take a hit when you change tactics midgame in the early phase of your career at a club, but this is wholly realistic because you ARE only learning the core style of play at the start. You can't expect the players to absorb everything all at once.

What I tend to do is create three tactics (eventually) where the first is what I call "the template", the second is a little removed, and the third is far removed. That allows me to change things around quite a lot if I really want. Although I almost never do, because my primary tactic is just made of awesome win. o: )

What is a bit unrealistic (as noted in the OP) is that managerial changes seem to destroy previous familiarity, so you have to start from the ground up entirely, even if you're going to play roughly the same system as your predecessor (or at least the same overall philosophy).