Absolutely Disgusted By the Power of AI Changing Tactics

[Mitja]

This is exactly my problem. Why should we have to change tactics just because the AI does? It implies that every change the AI makes is successful, which is exactly what annoys me so much. It's even worse when it is not a team like Chelsea and instead a Stoke or Hull. As a result of their changed formation they start dominating the game. It's absolutely stupid because it implies that these teams have the capacity to dictate the game. They certainly have the ability to get a result but they do not do it by controlling the game. They do it by stealing goals on the counter or from set pieces.

Birmingham went to Anfield and got a draw, but would anyone say they dominated the game? Does anyone think Brum even have the capacity to dominate a match at Anfield?

well managers do change their tactics and formations depending on scoreline and intuition. maybe not as frequant as in the game.

I agree with you that a team like Hull shouldn't be dominating teams like Chelsea so often. such teams shouldn't be dominating posession and shouldn't be able to pass the ball like they do in the game. but I'm not surprised they do, having in mind the state of ME and how the Wizard works. I think these problems go a lot deeper than we think.

in situation where a team that's supposed to win will start with some of attacking tactics. attacking mentality, fast tempo, low time wasting, a lot of width, resulting in gung-ho style. a Hull will play some of defensive strategies with defensive mentality, low tempo, high time wasting resulting in posessional football. with ME problems such as closing down not being effective enough and team with poor passing ability, still being able to play passing football we have opposite situation on the pitch than what we'd expect.

imo the Wizard's strategy setup is wrong. especially for defensive tactics, teams don't change 'every slider' depending on their plans like the Wizard does. I would bet my life that managers don't play with 'mentality 18' in one moment and 'menatlity 4' in next one. 'mentality' is something managers train and you can't change it like closing down or width instructions. it's a philosophy and it must be consistant over a period of time and you need that consistancy so your players can understand what you want them to do on the pitch. imo every team plays with more or less same 'mentality' no metter the opponent. only when going gung-ho or parking the bus, they will change the 'mentality'. I would argue that even passing philosophy and ssome other instructions are far more consistent irl, most teams don't change their passing styles, like in FM.

in FM every team will play with any style and any strategy with any philosophy-mentality, which is not the case in reall football. irl it's much more about style that you try to perfect on training ground, it's about consistancy of tactics and gelling.

[Mitja]

I hope the above makes some sense.

what I wanted to say is that a real life manager's 'defensive' tactic won't be so different to 'attacking'. the number of players going forward, closing down, d-line are among the first instructions that will be changed. but Wenger won't change his overall philosophy how he aproaches football when playing against Man Utd or Hull, like in FM.

[delboy69]

I know there are some flaws in the match engine but remember anything can actually happen in football who could have predicted spurs 9 wigan 1? if that had happened on FM, no doubt we'd have all been shouting 'that would never happen in real life'. and who could forget pompey 7 reading 4 a couple of seasons ago???

I'm using the touchline instructions less and less now. I'm playing attacking every game this season and have lost 3 out of 11. If I'm winning by one goal I'll change to counter with around 15 mins to go. The game whilst not perfect (and that I think would be impossible to achieve anyway) is in my experience extremely realistic.

Thing is you get unrealistic things go in your favour, I mean when I got Cambridge promoted to the prem league, the media prediction was bottom!

However, we all get frustrated when things don't go well. I've not resorted to breaking things yet but I've had a number of mini rages at the game. A basil fawlty bashing his car in fawlty towers kind of thing!

[paganizer]

Looks like a perfect example of how FM has gone very micromanagement thereby taking the joy out of the game for a lot of players.

Yeah that might be it. Having to change tactics everytime you play a new opponent, using lots of shouts.. not realistic. Most teams play "their" game and stick to it, only adjusting very little. That is impossible (for me atleast) as it is now.

I started watching matches in full, but with the current match engine, it really doesn't make a difference. The team performs so inconsistently it's sucking all fun out of the game. Win away against number 1, lose at home to bottom team, creating lots of chances, no possesion, no chances, lots of possesion. It seems completely random and it makes no sense. And it's definately no fun.

[Elmo]

Im not sure how anyone can say its realistic for a team to change formation multiple times in a match. I am very much of the opinion that it occurs to often in game in comparison with reality. True, in real life teams may tweak a system or formation, but rarely do you see a team move from a 442 to a 352 as the game likes to show. Similarly, rarely in real life do players end up out of position - yet this is a common theme in game where the AI picks a formation and shoehorns players in midgame.

[looknohands]

That seems like real life to me.

If you score, they're bound to change tactics to get back on level terms, before retreating into their shells after the equaliser.

Maybe for the next one, they should introduce "macro-tactics".

These might take the form of "when we lead, we press for another goal" or "when we lead, we close shop" or "when we lead we play as default setting". So that, effectively, we can tell the AI automatically what to do before the game for certain situations. It's pretty automatic the way managers and players react in real life. They know what they're going to do well in advance for certain situations.

Maybe a more sophisticated version "when we are losing by more than one goal use [saved Tactic]"

Such "macro-tactics" would help casual players who are playing with just "key highlights".

I suppose it's similar to entrusting the assistant manager to handle tactical changes - but the big difference would be that it's YOU making the changes in advance and not some bad-stats assistant manager.

The code is already there for this sort of change, as the AI makes these decisions automatically all the time. Let the human player control such automation for their team, and it should improve things.

The problem I'm having, though, is that even if I score in the third minute the computer will automatically go on the offensive. That, to me, seems unrealistic as most coaches would at least give their team a chance to settle in and try out his gameplan. Now if I'm still up 1-0 in the 70th minute I'd expect the other team to bring in some subs and change their look to press for the result...but to constantly change their mentality several times over the course of a single game? I just don't see that.

I guess the big issue I'm having is the way the game presents the scenario- as soon as the computer goes into "attack" mode it looks as though their players gain superpowers. They absolutely fly around the field and get on the end of nearly every loose ball (or so it seems.) This becomes a bigger problem in elimination-style games (MLS playoffs for me) when the computer will go on the attack and stay there. I've tried adopting a more defensive approach, but that usually resulted in a slaughter. My best luck has been to mirror their attacking strategy, resulting in such realistic scores along the lines of 5-4 or 6-5.

[rich10]

For what it's worth; my response to the original poster would be that telling your players to "Get Stuck In" will only result in a higher chance of being red-carded.

If you read the literature on FM Britain (http://www.fm-britain.co.uk/2009/11/04/what-do-the-touchline-instructions-or-shouts-actually-do/) - sorry if that contravenes any forum rules - you'll discover which touchline shouts affect which parts of your game out on the pitch.

Personally I'd have gone for "Retain Possession" and "Pass To Feet". I recently destroyed United 1-4 at their place using these same shouts; after containing them (with ease) for the first 20 minutes.

Having said all of that, it will also depend on tactics & who turns up on the day, luckily for me, Babel decided he wanted to use a bit of his potential we are constantly told he has.

[rich10]

Oh, and you surely have to expect changes from any opposing manager when the game changes or is slipping away from them(?), this increases the challenge and makes it mirror real life more accurately.

I find listening to my back room staff's opinion of the impending match more than helpful. Switching between direct and shorter passing when the pitch dictates it pay dividends. dividends!

[RT--]

I'm always amazed how much credit people give the AI on this game.

- They use the Tactics Creator

- They choose a formation based on the AI manager's preference

- They choose their playing style (passing style, fluid/rigid, marking, closing down, etc) based on a few of the AI manager's attributes

- They pick their players for the line-up based largely on their perceived CA and rep, and choose player roles loosely based on a few attributes (they might rotate players more based on their attributes, or rest players for competitions that aren't deemed important)

- They alter their starting strategy (balanced, attacking, defensive, etc) based, effectively, on the match odds and maybe the AI manager's attributes

- They use one or two very basic shouts

- They alter their strategy in-game, depending on some very basic rules

- They use the sort of team-talks that you typically get from your assistant manager

If anything, the AI is actually not as clever as it should be. Their ability to build and manage their squad is pretty bad, for instance, compared to what any half-decent human user can do.

[RT--]

That seems like real life to me.

If you score, they're bound to change tactics to get back on level terms, before retreating into their shells after the equaliser.

Maybe for the next one, they should introduce "macro-tactics".

These might take the form of "when we lead, we press for another goal" or "when we lead, we close shop" or "when we lead we play as default setting". So that, effectively, we can tell the AI automatically what to do before the game for certain situations. It's pretty automatic the way managers and players react in real life. They know what they're going to do well in advance for certain situations.

Maybe a more sophisticated version "when we are losing by more than one goal use [saved Tactic]"

Such "macro-tactics" would help casual players who are playing with just "key highlights".

I suppose it's similar to entrusting the assistant manager to handle tactical changes - but the big difference would be that it's YOU making the changes in advance and not some bad-stats assistant manager.

The code is already there for this sort of change, as the AI makes these decisions automatically all the time. Let the human player control such automation for their team, and it should improve things.

A very similar system already exists in FML, I think, for managers who don't have time to play every game, so can set up some basic rules for the AI to use in playing the game for them.

[daryn]

"The problem I'm having, though, is that even if I score in the third minute the computer will automatically go on the offensive. That, to me, seems unrealistic as most coaches would at least give their team a chance to settle in and try out his gameplan. Now if I'm still up 1-0 in the 70th minute I'd expect the other team to bring in some subs and change their look to press for the result...but to constantly change their mentality several times over the course of a single game? I just don't see that."

I think this is one of the best points in the thread. This has always been a concern of mine, the mindset that the AI has of changing tactics the instant it has fallen behind TOO soon or early in a game. Conceding a goal early on does not automatically warrant a change of tactics / mentality and it is normal for a team to see how the next 5 - 10 minutes are going before making a switch, if any. Changing mentality straight after a goal has been scored in the first 5 mins of a game does not happen that noticeably, not in any of the games that I have played in or watched.

Whether the AI scores because of these changes or not (sometimes is does straight away but many other times it doesn't) is not the issue.

Completely agree about a team pretty much always "going for it" in the last 10 to 15 minutes and that is very realistic. I played in a game a couple of weeks ago where we were 2-1 up in extra time against a team with 10 men with about 3 minutes left to play. They threw everyone forward and played 2 at the back......guess the rest, they score 2 goals in 2 minutes and we lost 3-2. And it wasn't because of our half-time team talk I promise

[#9Dream]

watch matches in full? u think we have time? some of us work and do other things than play fm

How dare you.

[JazzX]

I'm always amazed how much credit people give the AI on this game.

- They use the Tactics Creator

- They choose a formation based on the AI manager's preference

- They choose their playing style (passing style, fluid/rigid, marking, closing down, etc) based on a few of the AI manager's attributes

- They pick their players for the line-up based largely on their perceived CA and rep, and choose player roles loosely based on a few attributes (they might rotate players more based on their attributes, or rest players for competitions that aren't deemed important)

- They alter their starting strategy (balanced, attacking, defensive, etc) based, effectively, on the match odds and maybe the AI manager's attributes

- They use one or two very basic shouts

- They alter their strategy in-game, depending on some very basic rules

- They use the sort of team-talks that you typically get from your assistant manager

If anything, the AI is actually not as clever as it should be. Their ability to build and manage their squad is pretty bad, for instance, compared to what any half-decent human user can do.

Yes.

I'm not too impressed with my AI management team - or the way the game handles player ratings.

I think you're better off watching your players to see if they're any good.

I was watching one game, and I was impressed by a nippy little winger on the left - good runs and some good crosses.

In the second half, he got subbed -

"He heads straight for the dressing room"

"He knows he's had a bad game"

His rating was 5.1

It was just plain wrong, he hadn't played bad at all from what I saw.

[JazzX]

I know there are some flaws in the match engine but remember anything can actually happen in football who could have predicted spurs 9 wigan 1? if that had happened on FM, no doubt we'd have all been shouting 'that would never happen in real life'. and who could forget pompey 7 reading 4 a couple of seasons ago???

I'm using the touchline instructions less and less now. I'm playing attacking every game this season and have lost 3 out of 11. If I'm winning by one goal I'll change to counter with around 15 mins to go. The game whilst not perfect (and that I think would be impossible to achieve anyway) is in my experience extremely realistic.

Thing is you get unrealistic things go in your favour, I mean when I got Cambridge promoted to the prem league, the media prediction was bottom!

However, we all get frustrated when things don't go well. I've not resorted to breaking things yet but I've had a number of mini rages at the game. A basil fawlty bashing his car in fawlty towers kind of thing!

Lol - Cambridge

That's my local team.

They've lost in the play-off final two seasons running.

[Wakers]

Well done, mate. You're getting the hang of it. Amazing how some managers vent their frustrations on these forums against the ME and the game as a whole (and SI), when in reality, they're just mediocre managers and expect to win against a very smart AI. They just don't bother to learn all aspects of endless tactic variations this amazing game has to offer and still expect miracles.

What type of nonsense reply is this?

This thread is full of similar replies, and it irks me.

The OP is complaining about how often the AI changes tactics during the game. Of course, everyone ignores this and has a go at the OP for complaining.

How many managers do you know that change formation 5 times within a match?

That is the main point, and it is one that the OP is right to make.

[thebigman1985]

Arsenal don't play 4-3-3, according to Wenger. It's 4-1-4-1.

its a 4 2 3 1/4 3 3

u can see with your eyes

are u saying arshavin and walcott are side midfielders?

cesc plays in the fm 'amc' role with diaby and song are fit, otherwise hes in a midfield 2 with song behind them

its fairly obvious

[Wakers]

Of course, you know more about the formation that Arsenal play than Wenger does himself.

[Atletico Noztown]

I honestly couldn't care less about that. There's a moment in the 1st game where Vukcevic passes to an offside player with half the goal open to him inside the box. I can tell you I didn't deserve to win either game.

My problem is not the results, nor based on them. It's the effectiveness of the oppositions changing of tactics and what IMO is the rather over-powered impact they have.

Anagain mentioned picking the wrong formations. That's really what my beef is. IMO too many formations are the wrong formation because they are not a direct response to what the AI has put forward. It seems like everything I am required to do (whether or not I succeed in doing them) is based on what the AI is doing. Basically, I feel the value of having a tactic that plays to your strength is rather diminished because the flow of the game is not about the questions you ask as a manger. but how well you respond to those asked by the AI. Of course this should be a part of the game, but it feels to me like the AI is the only one who ever gets to ask the probing questions. Frankly I find that annoying.

AMEN! That's exactly how I'm feeling i don't feel like the tactics I'm employing have any bearing on the oppositions. More often than not I'm being totally outplayed by teams from the top and the bottom of the league regardless of what i employ against who.

[Atletico Noztown]

This is exactly my problem. Why should we have to change tactics just because the AI does? It implies that every change the AI makes is successful, which is exactly what annoys me so much. It's even worse when it is not a team like Chelsea and instead a Stoke or Hull. As a result of their changed formation they start dominating the game. It's absolutely stupid because it implies that these teams have the capacity to dictate the game. They certainly have the ability to get a result but they do not do it by controlling the game. They do it by stealing goals on the counter or from set pieces.

Birmingham went to Anfield and got a draw, but would anyone say they dominated the game? Does anyone think Brum even have the capacity to dominate a match at Anfield?

The other thing I hate is the inconsistency between AI and human managers in the last 10 mins. Whenever I lead by 1 I see a ton of highlights with the AI attacking. I'm not saying this is unrealistic (though sometimes it is), but so often when I am down by a goal in the last 10 mins and go to overload I just see the clock tick by without so much as a highlight. I wouldn't say that the result in the last 10 mins is wrong, but the way it happens certainly is. If the AI wants a goal, if it doesn't score one it at least gets to create many chances, regardless of whether they have the capacity to just take the game by the scruff of the neck. But whenever I go to overload I don't get so much as a series of highlights?

That is the clearest description of the problem so far. Anybody who argues that this is "realistic" is an idiot, if I'm Noztown in league 1 with a good group of players employing a tactic that's won me games, and I'm sitting back defending a lead against some awful lower league side, how is it possibly real that there manager who has lead them nowhere thus far should suddenly mastermind some tactic out of nowhere that enables his rubbish side to constantly rain down ten minutes of shots on my goal?

Has anybody noticed that changing to "pump the ball into the box" means your players start to shoot from distance constantly.

And that "retain possession" usually means you end up getting caught in possession.

Real teams don't change there formation for every game that's utter nonsense you need continuity so as players can get a grip of there role in the team and how they should perform. Footballers are not bright people as a rule and overloading them with different sets of instructions every week so that every possible outcome has been thought threw is a ridiculous theory.

[thebigman1985]

Of course, you know more about the formation that Arsenal play than Wenger does himself.

well u can see that arshavin and walcott are not side mids ffs

maybe hed call barcas formation a 4 1 4 1?

[ndias]

Hi everyone.

Regarding the OP:

I do believe that just looking into the possession means absolutely nothing. I don't see any problem with the ME, if you have less possession against a world class team, even if you usually get the most of it in most of the games. I also don't see why having more possession on the second game with the same tactics, underlines the supposed ME problem and AI changing tactics controlling the flow. On the second game you had more possession but half of the shots, most likely your team was passing the ball around your defenders... Also you can see that you won much more tackles in the second game while Chelsea won much less. This also implies more ball possession for you.

Regarding the casual gamers which as also been mention in the thread, because of watching the games in full mode:

Why can't you do 2 games in the time that you now do 5? I believe that the joy of the game comes from the quality of the time that you play and not from how much games you can play. If you don't want to actually see the game and try to read it and change tactics accordingly, it's your call and it's absolutely fine, but you have to understand that in some games you may not achieve a good result. Since there is no difficulty level on FM, it wouldn't make sense to limit the game wealthiness in tactics and strategies to fulfill the casual gamer desires and limit the game capability to give several steps forward.

[neutral]

Yeah, SI should have set 2 difficulties, one is for NOOB(90-100% possesion, 0% lose etc) and the another one for advanced user...

This game isnt as hard as FM09 IMO...

[Wakers]

What a brilliantly insightful and helpful post that is.

So to you, neutral - is it realistic for a team to change formation 5 times within the space of 30 minutes?

[RT--]

Is Ari Gold suggesting that Chelsea changed their actual formation several times in one game? Or does he mean their strategy?

I can't say I've ever noticed the AI teams change formation that often in a game - certainly not 5 times in 30 minutes.

[djwilko6]

well u can see that arshavin and walcott are not side mids ffs

maybe hed call barcas formation a 4 1 4 1?

They are both technically AMR/L's, the problem (or good ting) about Arsenal is that, in FM talk, they play an extremely fluid formation.

They usually play with 1 holding midfielder (Song) with 1 typical "Striker" then the 4 attacking players moving all around the top end of the pitch.

[dave byrd]

A perfect example of why you should watch your matches in full. You can't exepect to have a good control over your in game tactics if you don't watch half of the game.

Watch matches in full? Sod that. That's when FM stops being fun for 99% of the people who play it.

[wwfan]

What type of nonsense reply is this?

This thread is full of similar replies, and it irks me.

The OP is complaining about how often the AI changes tactics during the game. Of course, everyone ignores this and has a go at the OP for complaining.

How many managers do you know that change formation 5 times within a match?

That is the main point, and it is one that the OP is right to make.

It's an interesting point. If the team was changing formations every few minutes, I think the OP has a very relevant point. I don't think I've ever seen a football match in which a team went through formations at a rate of knots. However, if AI manager was reacting to going a goal down by pushing up and closing down more aggressively, or similar strategic changes, I think it is acceptably realistic.

[Wakers]

Yea, changing strategies is not a problem - although I would still query a manager changing strategy so often within a small space of time.

But I have seen AI teams switch formation three times in the last ten minutes of a game - often resulting in them getting a late goal before I can react to one of the changes. Of course that's partly my own fault for only watching key highlights.

[George Graham returns]

It's an interesting point. If the team was changing formations every few minutes, I think the OP has a very relevant point. I don't think I've ever seen a football match in which a team went through formations at a rate of knots. However, if AI manager was reacting to going a goal down by pushing up and closing down more aggressively, or similar strategic changes, I think it is acceptably realistic.

One solution is for SI to implement Defensive and Offensive player positions (within reason).

This might even eliminate the need for some sliders or at least be presented as such in the wizard.

By this I mean the way a 433 can become a 451 when a team loses possession, and vice versa when play transitions to attack.

So perhaps what SI are doing is letting the AI do this in some form.

[wwfan]

I don't think so. I think it is a left over from some old AI that focuses on formation switches above strategic ones. I'll have a word with a few people and see if it supposed to be happening and/or can be reduced. Although I'd like to see the odd Mourinho-esque switch from 4-5-1 to 4-4-2, it should be a one of switch made with the relevant change in personnel, rather than constant interchanging between formations.

Could I ask the OP to upload a match in which the AI changes formation regularly so I can get somebody to look at it.

[Marshdweller]

The more I play this game, the less certain I am whether there is a problem or isn't. I've been a disaster as Forest manager (an admission that breaks my heart), and a fair success as Le Mans manager in another save. In both however, I have been plagued by inconsistency (both players and team).

I suspect that there is an element of truth to the idea that there is a problem with the game. Either the Match Engine is going wrong somewhere, or the AI is too clever/too adaptable/unrealistic, or possibly the players are too sensitive to motivation etc. and so you can ruin your mental preparation for the upcoming match with just one wrong answer in the pre-match press conference, or with a slightly misjudged team-talk. Whatever it is, I'm sure SI are looking to see if there is a problem, and if there is, they are doing their best to sort it out.

I am disappointed with the attitude of many people, both in this thread and on the forum in general. Just because you aren't struggling doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist, just as other managers struggling doesn't imply that a problem does exist. It could well be that it is their tactics.

[B£NNY]

First match of the second season, against Palermo. They get one sent off. Somehow I loose the ball in the midfield because one of my player think he is Maradona, and then none of my two DM or CB thinks that there is any point in tackling him so he just run and shoot in the top corner from 20 meters, then i loose the ball in an damn stupid way again 10 minutes later and suddenly there is 2-0! This game is a joke. AI and human clearly arent equal.

[B£NNY]

Yeah, SI should have set 2 difficulties, one is for NOOB(90-100% possesion, 0% lose etc) and the another one for advanced user...

This game isnt as hard as FM09 IMO...

Are you serious? I wasn't a great success in 09, but there is a huge difference to this game. Its just ridiculous how good the AI is now, specially for low-end teams in your league. If you really can't see that you honestly got a problem.

[Wakers]

I have noticed that it is extremely difficult playing against the AI when they go a man down. I've tried common sense settings - playing wider, slightly slower temper and shorter passing to take advantage of the extra man, but it normally results in conceding a penalty or wondergoal.

[Mitja]

I think the biggest difference between FM2010 manager and real manager is that the real manager will try to win opponent's team and FM manager will try to win opponent's manager. I'm defenetly not saying there's no tactical battle going on on the pitch.

real managers will try to persuade their team to play on their strenghts and exploit opponents' weaknesses, within football style they're using and which they have adopted and trained.

in FM it's all about having a right tactics for right sitaution.

[Bababui]

First match of the second season, against Palermo. They get one sent off. Somehow I loose the ball in the midfield because one of my player think he is Maradona, and then none of my two DM or CB thinks that there is any point in tackling him so he just run and shoot in the top corner from 20 meters, then i loose the ball in an damn stupid way again 10 minutes later and suddenly there is 2-0! This game is a joke. AI and human clearly arent equal.

Part of the problem is that some people dont have a clue that what they are watching is a representation of what the ME determines..iys not what the ME determines. There is some disparity between what we see in the animations and what really happened. Dont confuse animated stupidity for what is actually occuring in the ME during a match.

[delboy69]

Lol - Cambridge

That's my local team.

They've lost in the play-off final two seasons running.

Me too, I always go United first game I have on FM. Never got them to the Prem League before without the aid of Genie Scout!

[Bababui]

Me too, I always go United first game I have on FM. Never got them to the Prem League before without the aid of Genie Scout!

Cambridge beat Liverpool in the FA Cup in my game.

[wwfan]

I have noticed that it is extremely difficult playing against the AI when they go a man down. I've tried common sense settings - playing wider, slightly slower temper and shorter passing to take advantage of the extra man, but it normally results in conceding a penalty or wondergoal.

That's interesting. I'd have done things slightly differently. Wider to open space, more direct passes and higher tempo to stretch the defence and take advantage of the extra space, hassle to force quick clearances as they will have less outball options.

[Wakers]

Well I learned that lesson in FM09 All that results in is giving away the ball cheaply. I haven't started a save with a 'good' team yet in FM10, so I have to say I'm weary of bumping the tempo up because generally my team isn't good enough to do it.

The approach that you quoted though is one that is ingrained in me from 7 a side when we have a man extra - keep the ball and be patient, because the space will come if you move the opposition around enough - while keeping a decent level of tempo and perhaps not slow as it may have come across in my post.

[looknohands]

It's an interesting point. If the team was changing formations every few minutes, I think the OP has a very relevant point. I don't think I've ever seen a football match in which a team went through formations at a rate of knots. However, if AI manager was reacting to going a goal down by pushing up and closing down more aggressively, or similar strategic changes, I think it is acceptably realistic.

The problem I'm having, though, is that the AI changes their mentality only long enough to even the score. They then immediately revert to their normal style (rather than stick with what's obviously working) only to change once again should I manage to score. That's what I'm having issues with; I find it highly unlikely that managers would be willing (and a team that is able) to seize the game at will. Could an odd manager do it? Possibly. Every team I play against? No way.

[JamsyLFC]

Cambridge beat Liverpool in the FA Cup in my game.

Sack Rafa.

[wwfan]

The problem I'm having, though, is that the AI changes their mentality only long enough to even the score. They then immediately revert to their normal style (rather than stick with what's obviously working) only to change once again should I manage to score. That's what I'm having issues with; I find it highly unlikely that managers would be willing (and a team that is able) to seize the game at will. Could an odd manager do it? Possibly. Every team I play against? No way.

Surely that would depend on how much better the opposing manager is than you in a tactical sense. If you are a really strong side reputation wise, against whom he'd happily take a point, but employ tactics that are defensively inadequate, then he'd do exactly that. Look for an equaliser, get it, and then sit back and defend, rather than go hell for leather for a second and risk a bloodbath on the break. He's happy with a point, so why continue to attack?

[JazzX]

Just played my first game in charge of Ghana against Mexico in the World Cup.

I watched the whole game from the touchline!

Mexico were favourites, but I set up for a containing game and it worked very well. I successfully turned the game into what seemed destined to be a bore draw.

Mexico seemed to have more pace than my back line, so I got them to play narrower and deeper. I also saw that my team were rubbish at passing quickly so I got them to slow things down.

On 85 minutes, we bundled in a rebound from a set-piece.

I promptly took off a striker and put an extra defender on.

But Mexico adapted by piling forward - one of my defenders tripped their striker in the box and it ended 1 - 1.

I've no complaints.

When I made a change, it seemed to have an effect.

The way I see it - the game is less than one month old - and people are crying that it's too hard and they should have mastered it by now.

This is a modern malaise.

If they don't win instantly the game's too hard Boo-Hoo ...

It's supposed to be tough and challenging.

"But I'm a casual player who uses only key highlights - I should still win the league using the same tactics I used in last year's version"

No you shouldn't. No more than Alex Ferguson should win if he didn't show up the games and watched the highlights on TV instead.

[looknohands]

Surely that would depend on how much better the opposing manager is than you in a tactical sense. If you are a really strong side reputation wise, against whom he'd happily take a point, but employ tactics that are defensively inadequate, then he'd do exactly that. Look for an equaliser, get it, and then sit back and defend, rather than go hell for leather for a second and risk a bloodbath on the break. He's happy with a point, so why continue to attack?

Again, the problem is that the changes are coming immediately following goals; even if the highlight is still running from the previous goal, I'll get the message "so-and-so are reverting" to their normal style of play.

If it matters, I'm playing in the MLS, so every team is pretty much equal in terms or rep, and I'm finding teams doing this even when they're the home side...and should be pushing for a win. My team is hardly setting the world on fire (I believe I was 2-5-3) so it isn't as though the other teams should be hoping for a draw. Yet the game is giving off a vibe as though the computer isn't really playing to win the game so much as frustrating my chances to win- the switch in tactics that the computer makes results in so much domination for them that it seems absurd that they'd be so quick to abandon it.

[Aytumious]

I'm always amazed how much credit people give the AI on this game.

- They use the Tactics Creator

- They choose a formation based on the AI manager's preference

- They choose their playing style (passing style, fluid/rigid, marking, closing down, etc) based on a few of the AI manager's attributes

- They pick their players for the line-up based largely on their perceived CA and rep, and choose player roles loosely based on a few attributes (they might rotate players more based on their attributes, or rest players for competitions that aren't deemed important)

- They alter their starting strategy (balanced, attacking, defensive, etc) based, effectively, on the match odds and maybe the AI manager's attributes

- They use one or two very basic shouts

- They alter their strategy in-game, depending on some very basic rules

- They use the sort of team-talks that you typically get from your assistant manager

If anything, the AI is actually not as clever as it should be. Their ability to build and manage their squad is pretty bad, for instance, compared to what any half-decent human user can do.

Excellent post. I have to agree. The match engine has become much more of a strategy game and in that light its not all that complex.

That being said, its much better than it has ever been.