Seems the thread was closed ,,

[gavinkil]

To a degree, but it is not as sophisticated as we'd like it to be yet.

Thanks for that

I think when this has been improved a lot of the problems within this thread will be nullified.

Improving the effects of the AI mangers skill levels are key for the game to improve and I look forward to this.

But as for your posts on the FML tactics changed based on situations in the match and seeing some form of tactics change. If these could be included that would certainly certain aspects of the game.

(sure I actually posted last year suggesting tactics or strategies based on situations would be an improvement for future games.)

One thing that has raised its head is training and I certainly agree the current slider idea is not good. I would even rather have no sliders and the coaches just auto do what they want with the players depending on how good they were.

I think it would also be a nice addition that if the coach for tactical training has a preferred formation of 4-3-3 and your playing a 4-4-2 he could mail you saying he is having difficulty. This could also be in relation to the teams ability to know a formation, I find it slightly unrealistic that you can just fire any formation on the team within the game and they will general work it. Training on tactics should be really important and within the current backroom advice meetings it would be nice if you got a message from the tactical coach saying "Tom Young now has a good understanding of our general philosophy and should be more productive on the field".

Obviously this is just my thoughts and dont get me wrong I do currently like the way the game is progressing this year is definitely better than last in terms of improvements.

[Thunda]

wwfan - no matter how its dressed up - the engine is still working on the principle of a 20 notch slider system - whether we're using (and sticking to) pre-sets and touchline shouts - the underlying wotsits is still using a 20 notch system and what pre-set we choose still has a place on that 20 point scale.

The style settings with the interface and the shouts from the touchline will adjust those pre-sets that we or the AI is using, up or down. Even if we knew that they have a "poacher", "advanced forward", "ball winning midfielder" in their team - the individual settings the AI chose for style "more longer passing" .. "less closing down" .. "more cautious tackling" .. and then the shouts .. "Get ball forward" (more longer passing) .. "hassle opponents" (more closing down) .. "dive into tackles" .. (harder tackling) .. all effect the sliders underneath and leave us not having a clue on how the AI team is playing - and certainly not when these choices are hidden.

On top of that - for the player - the Pre-Match advice from the backroom muddies the waters more and forces them to go advanced if they want to take action on the advice .. If I'm playing an attacking game at home - my defensive line is therefore going to be high - yet if my Ass Man advises pre-match that the opposition struggles when they face a " .. deep defensive line and advises that way play a very deep defensive line" - then its impossible to achieve this with an attacking formation and a shout of "drop deeper" as the "drop deeper" shout doesn't drop it far enough - in which case, if I want to take advantage of this weakness - I have to go advanced and drop the defensive line manually - which itself has a ripple effect through the team because now my gaps are wider. To achieve this just using shouts - I have to give up my Attacking intent, play "defensive" and "drop deeper" - which I'm not going to do in a game I'm expected to win.

Now you may argue - thats a choice I have to make and your right .. But as one of the basic tactical tennants is to exploit the oppositions weakness .. by "encouraging" the player to just use pre-sets and shouts - they are not able to fully exploit the oppositions weaknesses, give the AI tactic the exploitation it deserves and maybe end up getting punished because they are encouraged to use subjective instructions - "shouts" - to try and exploit a subjective opposition weakness within the framework of a precise slider system.

Why do they struggle against a deep defensive line? Its fine saying they do - but why? If I could get a glimpse of their "fuzzy" slider settings - then I could maybe work ouit why. Maybe its to do with their passing? Maybe their closing down? The tempo they play? If I knew this, maybe I could exploit this weakness usng another method other than just dropping the defensive line blindly.

Surely thats adds more tactical wizardry to the system then simply advising me to drop my d-line?

That may make things a little more complex for the casual player, I agree, but at least they'd have a starting point and could work it out if they choose too - rather than just guessing like they do at the moment? Or, blindly following the advice of the Ass Manager which will result in issues throughout the rest of their team that they are maybe not aware of?

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

That may make things a little more complex for the casual player, I agree, but at least they'd have a starting point and could work it out if they choose too - rather than just guessing like they do at the moment?

But complex is good, don't fear the complex! (I've already banged on once in this thread about how complex and complicated aren't the same thing, I don't want to sound like a stuck-record .... ... hang on, most of you here are probably too young to remember vinyl. )

The AI manager uses creator defaults for everything except set pieces.

Sorry, perhaps you (or someone else in-the-know) could just clarify that a little bit... Does the AI manager change which roles are assigned to each position, or just use the "creator default" roles for the chosen formation/strategy? i.e. Let's say the creator default roles for the outside midfielders in an attacking 4-4-2 are "Wingers" (I don't know if they are - I'm at work and can't check, but it's just an example!!), then could the AI manager decide to change one or both of those to "Inside Forwards"?

It's just that the default settings for an "Inside Forward" could be considered a "creator default", depending on how you look at it.

[Thunda]

But complex is good, don't fear the complex! (I've already banged on once in this thread about how complex and complicated aren't the same thing, I don't want to sound like a stuck-record .... ... hang on, most of you here are probably too young to remember vinyl. )

Yeah, there is nothing wrong with complex - I, personally, want complex .. I don't want to, whatever people may think reading this thread - to just " .. play Gerrard and win .. " .. What I want - and a lot more people want when you read the threads - is some starting point from which to work. This years version gives the pre-sets and the interface which, in that area, will give people an understanding and at least get there team playing in a way that isn't haphazard based on random slider selections they've done in the past. Good.

However, my teams performance isn't just dependent on my players abilities and my slider settings (whether selected just by pre-set or by manually tweaking sliders - and regardless of "how much" or "how little" those sliders should effect things). There are 11 other blokes on the pitch and someone else in a sheepskin coat smoking a cuban trying to get them to follow his instructions, too.

So, those two slider settings (again, pre-set or not) - come and meet head on.

Now if we don't have any idea whatsoever on what those sliders the AI is using are set at - then, we're up the swanny. We can guess certain things by looking at a very breif scout report or by watching a full match (but even then, the engine is handicapped in not being able to portray things accurately) - the rest of it is a mystery. Its all guesswork .. it might be "educated" guess work in some areas and some people may be able to guess better than others based on their experience of the match engine - but you can't apply anything against anything other than the glaringly obvious or what the match engine is able to portray accurately (ie, formation .. defensive line).

Now just focussing on these obvious areas might be enough - but, there are so many other areas we could focus on but we can't because we're not provided that information - information we would have if we were watching a proper game of football or reading a proper scout report .. (at least we'd have an informed idea in the ball park) - then, people can get to work working out what works and what doesn't work and apply it against different teams or managers they face.

Its fine saying "up your defensive line" to cut space so as to disrupt the oppositions passing - yes, something you'd do in real life and that by itself could do the job your looking for - but some games it works, sometimes it doesn't - and it doesn't because there is something else going on that you're not aware of .. you can look at the stats and see if a player seems to be directing play and get tight to him .. but there still could be other things that no matter where you look, you don't see because the information isn't there.

With the best will in the world - the 2d / 3d match engine is never going to accurately represent the players abilities and the tactical sliders that have been set .. and so the player is left trying to do a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing and the guide picture torn up.

My solution (and possibly the only solution without having to wade through pages of subjective explicit descriptions - complex, now becomes, complicated) - is a "fuzzy" view of the AI sliders.

[wwfan]

Sorry, perhaps you (or someone else in-the-know) could just clarify that a little bit... Does the AI manager change which roles are assigned to each position, or just use the "creator default" roles for the chosen formation/strategy? i.e. Let's say the creator default roles for the outside midfielders in an attacking 4-4-2 are "Wingers" (I don't know if they are - I'm at work and can't check, but it's just an example!!), then could the AI manager decide to change one or both of those to "Inside Forwards"?

It's just that the default settings for an "Inside Forward" could be considered a "creator default", depending on how you look at it.

Depending on the quality of the AI manager, he'll pick the best roles/duties for the players at his disposal.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

Depending on the quality of the AI manager, he'll pick the best roles/duties for the players at his disposal.

Ok thanks for answering. I was just curious to learn a little more about the "thought" process the AI manager goes through.

[SFraser]

There is a hugely important point Thunda is making and that is that Tactics in FM are hugely overpowered in all the wrong places. There is no excuse for being able to design unrealistically poor behaviour, and I would have to agree with the point that far too much player behaviour is down to "tactical options" while there remains far too little attention to actual tactics.

Slider or "Tactics Creator" mechanics involving Creative Freedom and Passing style have to be two of the most counter-productive and outright badly implimented tactical decisions in the game. Fullbacks and Centrebacks do not care one single iota about their freedom to express themselves and the preferred passing style of the team when under pressure and yet failure to perfectly tune these options according to mental and technical statistics, formation, opponent pressure etc. results in abject calamity time after time.

It is the game itself in these contexts that does not understand football. Maximum Creative Freedom and Direct Passing results in a ball chipped down the flank to the winger. Minimum Creative Freedom and Short Passing results in the riskiest ball in football as the Fullback plays it inside to a Centreback or Defensive Midfielder under pressure.

No Centreback in Football Manager is capable of chipping the ball into space in the centre circle when the opponent is pressing hard without trying to half volley the ball first time to the AMC when he is not under pressure.

You want Messi to shoot when he cuts inside from the right wing onto his left foot? Maximum Creative Freedom and Long Shots Often. Unfortunately that means every pass of his is a chip and every corner he takes he tries to score from.

What else is a complete failure in FM? Well how about Tempo for a start. You want to ping the ball about like Xavi and Iniesta? Make sure your Centrebacks and Holding Midfielder have HUB ticked or it is going out of play, unless ofcourse you buy Fabregas, that world famous defensive midfielder.

Despite the wholesome appreciation of the Tactics Creator which simply makes the game easier for the average guy to actually figure out, the game as a whole is rattling badly. Players suck in their real life positions, modern tactics don't work, tactical instructions are counter-intuitive at best and at worst they turn the game into a farce.

Figuring out the details of the sliders, the individual functional meaning of each attribute, and the quirks of the match engine is the only way to replicate anything close to real life football in FM but even then there is simply too much lacking in the games tactical options to get remotely close to replicating actual football.

That is the biggest disappointment of the lot.

[Hammer1000]

There is a hugely important point Thunda is making and that is that Tactics in FM are hugely overpowered in all the wrong places. There is no excuse for being able to design unrealistically poor behaviour, and I would have to agree with the point that far too much player behaviour is down to "tactical options" while there remains far too little attention to actual tactics.

Slider or "Tactics Creator" mechanics involving Creative Freedom and Passing style have to be two of the most counter-productive and outright badly implimented tactical decisions in the game. Fullbacks and Centrebacks do not care one single iota about their freedom to express themselves and the preferred passing style of the team when under pressure and yet failure to perfectly tune these options according to mental and technical statistics, formation, opponent pressure etc. results in abject calamity time after time.

It is the game itself in these contexts that does not understand football. Maximum Creative Freedom and Direct Passing results in a ball chipped down the flank to the winger. Minimum Creative Freedom and Short Passing results in the riskiest ball in football as the Fullback plays it inside to a Centreback or Defensive Midfielder under pressure.

No Centreback in Football Manager is capable of chipping the ball into space in the centre circle when the opponent is pressing hard without trying to half volley the ball first time to the AMC when he is not under pressure.

You want Messi to shoot when he cuts inside from the right wing onto his left foot? Maximum Creative Freedom and Long Shots Often. Unfortunately that means every pass of his is a chip and every corner he takes he tries to score from.

What else is a complete failure in FM? Well how about Tempo for a start. You want to ping the ball about like Xavi and Iniesta? Make sure your Centrebacks and Holding Midfielder have HUB ticked or it is going out of play, unless ofcourse you buy Fabregas, that world famous defensive midfielder.

Despite the wholesome appreciation of the Tactics Creator which simply makes the game easier for the average guy to actually figure out, the game as a whole is rattling badly. Players suck in their real life positions, modern tactics don't work, tactical instructions are counter-intuitive at best and at worst they turn the game into a farce.

Figuring out the details of the sliders, the individual functional meaning of each attribute, and the quirks of the match engine is the only way to replicate anything close to real life football in FM but even then there is simply too much lacking in the games tactical options to get remotely close to replicating actual football.

That is the biggest disappointment of the lot.

WOW, great post and much respect, the best post of yours i've ever read, 2nd is your post in the "Real World Tactics"(or whatever its called thread) Kudos to you!

(unless i'm drunk and have just read it all wrong? )

[Thunda]

Of course you should be punished for tactical blunders - nobody is saying you shouldn't .. What people are saying is that a tactical blunder doesn't make a guy with a 18 passing on your side play as tho he has a 4 passing and a 4 passing guy on the opposition start passing with an 18 passing.

A 18 passing guy (or finishing or tackling etc) is STILL an 18 passing guy regardless of the tactic and the quality of the player will plug the holes where a tactical blunder exists. This might not be the case vs equal quality players (because they are just as good) - but against lesser teams, it will.

An 18 finisher will still put the chances away he gets with a poor tactic at the same rate he'll put them away with a great tactic (yes, he might get less chances with the poor tactic) - but he won't suddenly turn into a player with 2 left feet because the tactic is bad .. and the 18 finisher will still put away NON-CCCs at the same rate as he would with a great tactic.

But in FM - as many complaints show - "Had 20 shots, 10 on target, 3 CCCs, 5 long shots .. and get beat 1-0 by a team who has 3 shots - despite having Torres up front" and these game do happen more often in FM than in realty. Yes, within the confines of FM, it will be something in your tactics .. Thats the point .. in reality, quality players in quality teams, will more often than not, still get 1 or 2 goals in that situation - and don't pull an example from the 1994 / 95 season! Yes, smash-and-grabs do happen on occassion - but, rarely compared to FM. But in FM, you need to do that 1 or 2 tweaks to make the difference.

But looking at the stats - 20 shots, 10 OT, 3 CCCs .. vs 3 shots against .. there isn't anything wrong with the tactics on the surface. Your creating chances and limiting the opposition which is the whole point of football - but because in FM you haven't done this " .. and you needed to .. " then .. you don't score and suffer a higher ratio of smash & grabs than what would happen in reality.

[crouchaldinho]

Thunda - did you ever watch England under Sven and that other 'wally with the brolly' chap?

Two quality players in Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard, in particular, made some shocking performances for England during that era. What was cited as the reason for this? The tactical choices of the England manager.

As for the match stats business, it always interests me deeply that people who experience this on a regular basis don't attempt to do something about it tactically. They always seem to just keep playing on and on rather than trying to find out why it is happening or attempting to change things. It's a sign of madness to attempt the same thing over and over again and expect different results. It'll annoy the hell out of you and Hammer to hear me say it but it simply doesn't happen to me.

Have you actually tried playing FM10? I can't help but feel that a lot of your complaints might well be solved by using the tactics creator in the new game.

Regards,

C.

[crouchaldinho]

I'm linking to the new podcast from FM Britain here, which is about reading the match engine.

In this podcast, it is argued that if you have good enough players then simple tactical changes should be enough to be successful and that you do not need to tweak all of the time. They also say that it is 'different strokes for different folks', in that if you want to tweak and get extra out of the game, then you can, but you don't have to. Essentially good players and common sense will be enough and you don't have to tweak all of the time. There is also some really good advice on reading the engine and comparing tactical decisions in FM to real life.

Obviously, I am paraphrasing here (and not very well) and I would therefore suggest listening to it. I think a lot of people here would benefit from trying it out.

Regards,

C.

[Hammerpool]

Thunda.

Re-read my post mate. I wasnt saying the same as you at all. I wrote clear examples of where you are wrong.

Obviously better players should lean towards better results, but if you think there arent managers that can get better / good results with lesser players you are honeslty talking nonesense.

Brian Clough's Forest is another shinning example, with the exception of Trevor Francis, none of his players were 'stars' of their time - Cloughy made them stars.

I also see you talk alot about Benitez. Please tell me which of his 'stars' at Valencia (when they flew down the league after Benitez' departure) went onto achieve anything like the success they achieved under him.

e.g. Carew, Aimar, Mista, Vicente, Baraja, Albelda, Rufete.

The answer is, they didn't. Not at Valencia or anywhere else. In fact, the likes of Baraja, Vicente and Albelda were main stays in an under performing Spain side. No other coach has got the same results out of these players.

Surely this is because Benitez made them winners through his tactics.

[Thunda]

(Hammerpool - first off - that post from me was my mistake .. I was answering an earlier post thinking it was the last one - but it was on a previous page .. ..

Lets clear something up, tho, once and for all shall we (despite it being said numerous times already).

Nobody is disputing that tactics won't and will never effect performances - of course they will, both yours and the oppositions - my argument is the effect of those tactics in FM vs Quality of player ..

By finding the perfect match of Player and Strategy / Tactic - "lesser" quality players can find success (ala Bolton) .. But .. .you can't apply any old tactical wizardry to those players and expect them to perform at the same level .. (again - Bolton when Sammy Lee took over). Arsenal play the Arsenal way because they have the players to suit and the players of the required quality .. Bolton played the way they played under Big Fat Sam because they had the players to suit and players of the required quality to play that way (but, not the quality to play the Arsenal way). BFSs approach with Bolton suited that group of players he had (and the players he brought in). But still, Bolton didn't win the league or get in the Champs League .. they scraped into a Euro slot (which any number of 6 teams juggle over each year).

But what we're talking about there is an overall playing style / strategy and the suitable players to play it .. not tactical whizz bang on a match to match basis (which is what I'm talking about). As in boxing, style makes fights. And in football - sometime one style can't play against another .. hence, why Arsenal used to struggle against Bolton. Why didn't other teams play the Bolton way against Arsenal and get success? Becuase the never had the same type of players with the same qualities.

[Zebedee77]

Nobody is disputing that tactics won't and will never effect performances - of course they will, both yours and the oppositions - my argument is the effect of those tactics in FM vs Quality of player ..

A thought did occur to me - does the game engine perversely over-penalise players with good skills because they will stick very clearly to the manager's tactical plan whether or not it has errors within it? Without knowing how the game engine interprets positional/tactical attributes it's impossible for me to say. The vast majority of my time with 09 and 10 has been spent at the lower reaches of the footballing ladder - am I not seeing the same issues as you anywhere like as much as you because 99% of the time my players' lack of ability means that they are accidentally mitigating eg positional problems? Could it be something as simple as tweaking the impact of the mental/tactical attributes and how they function within the game?

[SFraser]

A thought did occur to me - does the game engine perversely over-penalise players with good skills because they will stick very clearly to the manager's tactical plan whether or not it has errors within it? Without knowing how the game engine interprets positional/tactical attributes it's impossible for me to say. The vast majority of my time with 09 and 10 has been spent at the lower reaches of the footballing ladder - am I not seeing the same issues as you anywhere like as much as you because 99% of the time my players' lack of ability means that they are accidentally mitigating eg positional problems? Could it be something as simple as tweaking the impact of the mental/tactical attributes and how they function within the game?

You can't rule that out but in fairness that is still just a case of adapting your tactics to the behaviour of your players. Even if your ideal tactical setup from your team is unworkable at higher levels because it exploits and is based around errors and poor behaviour in inferior players, that's not really a problem so much as a form of realism.

I think you have to ask yourself though, is the fuss over say Fullback Passing in FM tactics and the match engine actually accurate? Obviously Fullback Passing angles and choices are hugely important but is it realistic for a preferred Passing Style to take the form of a Preferred Passing setting that applies in all match contexts and is hugely influenced by Creative Freedom settings? Is it realistic for example for a low mentality, low passing, low creative freedom Fullback to be deprived of a direct ball down the flank and vice versa? Indeed is it necessary for such a preferred passing choice from the manager to be constructed out of settings that may infact remove and defeat logical real world Fullback Passing behaviour?

Fullback Passing in FM09 appeared to me to be one of the most vital components of an entire team, requiring fairly detailed tweaking, and would regularly prove to be one of the key areas where a game would be lost without paying sufficient attention to range, angle and creativity of passing choices. That just doesn't seem realistic to me.

Nobody is disputing that tactics won't and will never effect performances - of course they will, both yours and the oppositions - my argument is the effect of those tactics in FM vs Quality of player ..

By finding the perfect match of Player and Strategy / Tactic - "lesser" quality players can find success (ala Bolton) .. But .. .you can't apply any old tactical wizardry to those players and expect them to perform at the same level .. (again - Bolton when Sammy Lee took over). Arsenal play the Arsenal way because they have the players to suit and the players of the required quality .. Bolton played the way they played under Big Fat Sam because they had the players to suit and players of the required quality to play that way (but, not the quality to play the Arsenal way). BFSs approach with Bolton suited that group of players he had (and the players he brought in). But still, Bolton didn't win the league or get in the Champs League .. they scraped into a Euro slot (which any number of 6 teams juggle over each year).

But what we're talking about there is an overall playing style / strategy and the suitable players to play it .. not tactical whizz bang on a match to match basis (which is what I'm talking about). As in boxing, style makes fights. And in football - sometime one style can't play against another .. hence, why Arsenal used to struggle against Bolton. Why didn't other teams play the Bolton way against Arsenal and get success? Becuase the never had the same type of players with the same qualities.

I thoroughly agree with this post. In the Real World Tactical Approaches thread the point has been made that tactics, even apparently complicated and detailed and highly controlled and tuned tactics, very often amount to little more than getting the right players in the right positions and letting them play their natural games. That may be a bit simplistic but you could certainly make the arguement that the overwhelming majority of tactical issues you come up against in FM are already set the moment a starting line-up is picked in the real world.

In my opinion the game is making up for some clear and undeniable failures to replicate the reality of football by providing options and behaviours on the football pitch that are not very realistic but combine to produce a roughly accurate representation. When players do not learn and adapt to each others game on the training ground and in matches then the game must provide the options to recreate those adaptions of play through managerial decisions.

It is quite unrealistic for example that substituting Dimitar Berbatov for Michael Owen and making no other changes will result in Michael Owen attempting to play like Berbatov and the rest of the team continuing to play as if Berbatov is still on the pitch.

You can argue that the above point is an example of limitations in the game and it is a fair arguement, but I would say it is an example of what Thunda is saying, far too much behaviour is controlled by tactical options and far too little behaviour is correctly ascribed to players themselves. This fits in completely with my first point about Fullback Passing.

Important tactical issues are not directly touched in FM while near non-existant tactical issues in Football are delved into in great depth in FM. Midfield pressing is a good example of this. If I want to play two lines of four and get my midfield four to hold a good shape and press the ball whenever it moves into their zone, then retreat behind the ball every time the midfield is penetrated then I must custom design the individual closing-down, tackling, marking and mentality of every player in my midfield according to their attributes, their starting positions, and every individual variation in formation and tactics of the opponent at hand.

I personally have never managed to achieve the kind of basic, organised midfield defensive play I regularly see on Television. I remember Roy Keane at Sunderland playing Arsenal in one game that Sunderland lost, but for 45 minutes Sunderland were playing this excellent disciplined 5 man midfield where each midfielder had a zone he would close down when the ball arrived there and the other four midfielders would drop off and form a four man wall behind him. As soon as one Arsenal lad pinged the ball down the flanks the Sunderland wide midfielder would rush to him and hack and bite while the other four sprinted back and lined up infront of their defence and facing the Arsenal runners.

It is quite possible I do not understand the implications of all the individual defensive tactical instructions in FM but that has a lot do with the fact I cannot explain a single pressing system to my midfield unit.

[SFraser]

Apologies for the double post but this just occured to me and I want to keep my points seperate.

Perhaps there is a case for discussing how far tactics and ME representations of football can go in terms of realism and ease of understanding and accuracy of use when hugely important aspects of football management and football in general are left functional but wholly unrealistic.

I am talking ofcourse about Training.

The game of FM itself has become shoehorned into solving the problems it's inaccuracy is creating instead of improving it's simulation of football. FM10 is the crowning example of that, with each detail of its new features being a consequence of the need to fix self created problems. There is not actually a whole lot more football kicking around under the bonnet of FM10 if there is any more football at all.

Training as it currently functions is a complicated but not bad system of good gameplay function. It lets you mould players according to your liking, it enables backroom relationships and problems, it deals with condition and morale, and it is not a bad gameplay system. But it is a vast factor in tactical and player performances in real life football. When aspects of the game like Training are abstracted to such a degree as they currently are, it is impossible to accurately replicate Match Day football and real life Tactics and real life Tactical decisions, actions, choices and options.

I don't think it is too bold to state that the overwhelming majority of football tactics arise from the Training ground. That is where you learn what players are capable of, that is where players learn each others games, that is where players are drilled in tactical principles, that is where new ideas are tested and formations developed.

Training is the meat and veg of football and so long as FM ignores Training it is in a sense ignoring football and it is never going to accurately represent what happens on Match Day.

Granted a computer game must be focused on providing enjoyable and accessible gameplay, but the top Football Management computer game must be focused on providing enjoyable and accessible realism. Dealing with the aspects outside of Match Day that are providing insurmountable problems in accuracy, realism, ease of use, immersion and enjoyment is a simple must. Making them fun is the job of SI, but dealing with them effectively is likewise the job of SI. Football Manager might be the deepest, most well constructed and logical Football Manager simulation around but it is not accurate and that lack of accuracy does not simply arise from the tactical sliders or the wizard options that make use of them. Sales figures might make FM look like football but you just have to look at the training module to realise how far away from football the game is.

[Zebedee77]

You can't rule that out but in fairness that is still just a case of adapting your tactics to the behaviour of your players. Even if your ideal tactical setup from your team is unworkable at higher levels because it exploits and is based around errors and poor behaviour in inferior players, that's not really a problem so much as a form of realism.

I guess what I'm asking is whether or not the basics are already within the system but currently we're not seeing them impacting upon things in the right way? Tactical behaviour based upon players' attributes, with the odd PPM thrown in, if you see what I mean.

Not sure it's feasible with current AI to actually implement what we do want to see. In fact, I know it's impossible. At best, we're looking at exceptionally well-written scripts to cover every conceivable eventuality. Would it be possible to rescript some of the behaviour patterns to be triggered by higher levels of tactical awareness on the part of the player? This would at least mitigate some of the problems being perceived. The idea of managers wrting their own 'pseudo-scripts' for specific match situations is something I'd like to see explored too.

Combined with the move forward to pushing the slider system into the background (via the tactical wizard/shouts/archetypical player 'types'), it might be possible to expand this system to apply to player instructions at an individual level and those decisions interact with the player's individual tactical ability?

You know that I agree that there are quite profound limitations on tactical issues currently within the game. So I'll not bang on about them here. I'd like to see them introduced, but I also appreciate that at the moment there's a quite broad 'disconnect' between some of the players of the game (whether they're over-represented by being so vocal, I doubt) and the ideas being implemented in the game. Until that's resolved, added complexity would probably be a more difficult thing. Not that it doesn't stop me whinging quietly about how difficult it is to achieve anything like decent lateral movement in defence or that the positioning of eg defenders on the lateral axis is very traditionally British.

Also: empty your PM box - I want to defend my Rafa ;p

[Thunda]

It is quite unrealistic for example that substituting Dimitar Berbatov for Michael Owen and making no other changes will result in Michael Owen attempting to play like Berbatov and the rest of the team continuing to play as if Berbatov is still on the pitch.

Thats exactly the example I made up above .. You bring Michael Owen on because he's Michael Owen and he plays like Michael Owen and he brings to the team what Michael Owen brings. The simple act of bringing him on the pitch signals both to him and the rest of the team how they are going to play, so the manager doesn't need to give instruction. But don't change his sliders (or select the correct Pre-Set) in FM - and he'll play how you had Berbatov set up. OK, the limitations of FM mean that that won't happen - of course not - but it is an example of how the players quality / abilities affect things much moreso than tactics.

I made a post on here ages ago stating that if Sliders were going to be continued with then the slider setting should be attached to the player and not the position on the pitch. So, Michael Owen would have a set of sliders and Berbatov would have another set of sliders. You bring one on for the other, the instructions automatically change (and effect team sliders if possible). With the new pre-sets (Poacher .. Deep Lying Forward etc) - then it should be even simpler to do - just assign his perferred role. In real life - managers don't make the mistake of forgetting to tell Michael Owen to play as Michael Owen (erm .. because they don't have to!!). Yes, its just a simple switch to make on the tactics screen (Owen = Poacher) .. and change through ball settings, tweak passing etc and whatever else would be needed through the rest of the team to take advantage of a player with Owens abilities.

Its these types of things that people "forget" to do, get classed as tactical "blunders", lose a match they should of won and then get frustrated. Their fault? Technically yes for forgetting. Really their fault? Well, no, due to the clumsiness and complexity people feel exist in the tactical engine and the need to get them absolutely right, when in reality, the wouldn't have to worry about it.

[michelco]

About the whole argument that Owen plays like Owen, Gerrard like Gerrard etc. Why not just make PPM's more powerful? I.E So that a cut-inside, get into opposition area winger will still most of the time do that even though I set his sliders to cross often and hug touchline. I would have to ask him to unlearn his PPM's in order to get him to play the way that I want. Like Owen at Newcastle. Their manager didn't just fiddle with the sliders and Owen suddenly learned his role, it took some time for him to learn it. Same can be said about Van Persie's new role as central striker at Arsenal instead of second-striker or deep-lying.

Extend the list of PPM's and we can reproduce how most players actually play IRL.

[SFraser]

I guess what I'm asking is whether or not the basics are already within the system but currently we're not seeing them impacting upon things in the right way? Tactical behaviour based upon players' attributes, with the odd PPM thrown in, if you see what I mean.

Not sure it's feasible with current AI to actually implement what we do want to see. In fact, I know it's impossible. At best, we're looking at exceptionally well-written scripts to cover every conceivable eventuality. Would it be possible to rescript some of the behaviour patterns to be triggered by higher levels of tactical awareness on the part of the player? This would at least mitigate some of the problems being perceived. The idea of managers wrting their own 'pseudo-scripts' for specific match situations is something I'd like to see explored too.

I don't disagree with you at all but cranking up complexity to enable certain users to replicate basic tactical issues that still don't actually work properly and certainly don't exist to the same extent FM implies is not a way forward.

I keep going back the Fullback Passing issue. Yes it most certainly can be shown to be hugely decisive in football but not every minute of every game ever played, and it certainly is inaccurate to tell fullbacks in the dressing room that the DM is the only option they have, ever.

Fullbacks deal with different issues in a game compared to Centrebacks, AMCs, DMCs and Wingers but unless you completely recognise those issues and micro-manage passing options accordingly, your fullbacks cannot retain possession or clear the ball to any degree approaching realism.

Also: empty your PM box - I want to defend my Rafa ;p

It's empty, you will need it

Thats exactly the example I made up above .. You bring Michael Owen on because he's Michael Owen and he plays like Michael Owen and he brings to the team what Michael Owen brings. The simple act of bringing him on the pitch signals both to him and the rest of the team how they are going to play, so the manager doesn't need to give instruction. But don't change his sliders (or select the correct Pre-Set) in FM - and he'll play how you had Berbatov set up. OK, the limitations of FM mean that that won't happen - of course not - but it is an example of how the players quality / abilities affect things much moreso than tactics.

I made a post on here ages ago stating that if Sliders were going to be continued with then the slider setting should be attached to the player and not the position on the pitch. So, Michael Owen would have a set of sliders and Berbatov would have another set of sliders. You bring one on for the other, the instructions automatically change (and effect team sliders if possible). With the new pre-sets (Poacher .. Deep Lying Forward etc) - then it should be even simpler to do - just assign his perferred role. In real life - managers don't make the mistake of forgetting to tell Michael Owen to play as Michael Owen (erm .. because they don't have to!!). Yes, its just a simple switch to make on the tactics screen (Owen = Poacher) .. and change through ball settings, tweak passing etc and whatever else would be needed through the rest of the team to take advantage of a player with Owens abilities.

Its these types of things that people "forget" to do, get classed as tactical "blunders", lose a match they should of won and then get frustrated. Their fault? Technically yes for forgetting. Really their fault? Well, no, due to the clumsiness and complexity people feel exist in the tactical engine and the need to get them absolutely right, when in reality, the wouldn't have to worry about it.

Excellent points across the board.

Your idea of players having sliders rather than positions having sliders fits in perfectly with my rant about the Training side of the game.

Your final point couldn't be more applicable to recent developments in FM.

I couldn't agree more with what you have posted in this thread. The Slider/Tactical Wizard issues today most definately do much to heal the rift between users that existed last year, but it serves only to cover over the fact that there are real fundamental flaws in this game in the way it approaches tactics and players and football in general, and I am not talking only about a lack of tactical options.

The game itself is not half bad, but when you step away from playing the computer game for a while and look at how it simulates football then everything you have said could not ring more true.

[woodphil]

I also like the idea of attaching the sliders or roles to individual players rather than the tactics, like the above posters have mentioned this seems to be achievable in future versions as we already have the positions (poacher, ball winning midfielder, ball playing centre back etc) and then players are just classified a role and they have their abilities reflected. If you need a goal in the last few minutes you can throw on your big target man and ask the players to launch balls into the box.

I have said previously that in my opinion since FM08 players abilities have become irrelevant. You must have the correct tactics or mentality for your team to perform and this doesn't seem to matter which team you manage or league your in. The problem with this set up is that I feel that most players who play the game get the most enjoyment from the transfer market side of things and the process of building up your squad and discovering unknown talent while you move up through the divisions etc.

Having players with their own role and you could also include preffered moves into this would go along way to reflecting the abilities of the individual players in my opinion.

[Thunda]

Yep, Woodphil, and if people want to tweak away at individual players sliders to maximise their abilities (which can be saved with the player), go for it .. But again, like with all the tactics - the word is "tweak" - cos they only contribute a small amount in the grand scheme of things ..

To quote Capello in a press conference yesterday in South Africa :

When you play in a World Cup Finals you are at the highest level and good players make the difference – always.

Not "tactics" .. not "tweaks" .. not "sliders"

good players make the difference – always

[crouchaldinho]

good players make the difference – always

How is that any different to FM10 though?

And I quote from Carlo Ancelotti below:

... a coach has to say what kind of movements he wants and should give clear indications. These are 'guides' for the talent, but it will be up to the talent to enrich the situation. But a 'guide' is always necessary.

(Note, I have added italics).

Regards,

C.

[Thunda]

Of course a guide is necessary - no-one (again!!!) is disputing that .. the question is whats more important? Player ... Motivation / Confidence .. Tactic?

As I've said right through the thread .. Players .. and then Motivation / Confidence .. are the most important ingredients ..

You can even have the best players .. but with little motivation / confidence .. and the best tactics in the world ever ... and they'll only win 1 in 10 .. No amount of jiggery-pokery tactic-wise overcomes that lack of confidence - lack of confidence effects how a player applies his abilities moreso than tactics - poor confidence / motivation can make a quality player play poorly and a poor player play well (but, never more than he is able to).

In FM - the tactic rules the roost .. Ok, the player ability will shine in a Man Utd vs Darlington cup game .. of course it will .. as long as the Man Utd players are motivated - but if they are not and the Darlo players are fired up, then you could get a shock .. but it won't be the Darlo tactics / Man Utd tactics that make the difference (might effect things slightly - which I've said all along). The tactics are the Cherry on the top. So yes, player quality does come into it.

But a lot of people under-estimate the gulf in quality between the top of the premier league, for instance, and the bottom .. ok, on a given day, the top could lose to the bottom .. but more often than not, its the sheer quality of player that the top teams can field that wins the day and its that sheer quality that results in Man Utd up near the top and Hull down the bottom and tactics be dammed as long as nothing stupid is done by the Man Utds of the world (ie, a simple 4-4-2 instead of a 1-3-6!).

[Hammerpool]

Yep, Woodphil, and if people want to tweak away at individual players sliders to maximise their abilities (which can be saved with the player), go for it .. But again, like with all the tactics - the word is "tweak" - cos they only contribute a small amount in the grand scheme of things ..

To quote Capello in a press conference yesterday in South Africa :

When you play in a World Cup Finals you are at the highest level and good players make the difference – always.

Not "tactics" .. not "tweaks" .. not "sliders"

good players make the difference – always

Using England and Capello really doesnt help your case. In fact in hinders it.

McClaren couldnt get us to qualify for a major competition (and we looked poor in the process). Capello comes in and, wahey, we qualify in absolute style. That is a big difference in my opinion.

Good players always make difference, when following a good managers tactics.

What would you expect Capello to say anyway??

'I am Capello, i make the difference' ????

[crouchaldinho]

Of course a guide is necessary - no-one (again!!!) is disputing that .. the question is whats more important? Player ... Motivation / Confidence .. Tactic?

The answer is that all of them are important.

In FM - the tactic rules the roost .. Ok, the player ability will shine in a Man Utd vs Darlington cup game .. of course it will .. as long as the Man Utd players are motivated - but if they are not and the Darlo players are fired up, then you could get a shock .. but it won't be the Darlo tactics / Man Utd tactics that make the difference (might effect things slightly - which I've said all along). The tactics are the Cherry on the top. So yes, player quality does come into it.

How is this any different to what is in FM10 though? :confused:

Are you saying that you can get Darlington to beat Man Utd just using a great tactic on FM regardless of player quality and morale?

We've all seen numerous matches where an underdog beats a bigger side due to a tactical master-stroke or due to having more self-confidence, belief and team spirit than the other team (and usually both). So tactics and motivation must be important factors as well.

But a lot of people under-estimate the gulf in quality between the top of the premier league, for instance, and the bottom .. ok, on a given day, the top could lose to the bottom .. but more often than not, its the sheer quality of player that the top teams can field that wins the day and its that sheer quality that results in Man Utd up near the top and Hull down the bottom and tactics be dammed as long as nothing stupid is done by the Man Utds of the world (ie, a simple 4-4-2 instead of a 1-3-6!).

How is it different in FM10 though? I still don't get it.

Are you saying that you can underachieve to an unrealistic level with Man Utd? I thought someone on this thread (Hammer maybe?) had already proved that with the most basic tactic and just clicking through the game that player quality alone would see him finish in the top four.

I still don't get the argument. Player quality is important, yes. Tactics are also important and so is motivation. It's been proved time and time again and it is what is argued by the top coaches and people involved in the game.

How is FM10 any different really?

Good players + good tactics + good morale = success.

Good players + bad tactics + bad morale = underachieving.

Bad players + good tactics + good morale = overachieving.

Regards,

C.

[RT--]

The main difference between a Poacher and Advanced Forward is the Poacher will tend to go directly for goal, whereas the Advanced forward will attack the flanks as well. Changes in strategy will prompt the 'more options in attack' rather than any specific shouts. To know what they are, you have to watch the match and the type of football the AI is playing.

This is something I've wondered, actually - why does a poacher have 'move into channels' set as their wide play instruction?

[Mr Enigma]

This is something I've wondered, actually - why does a poacher have 'move into channels' set as their wide play instruction?

I think it's to find space as a static forward will mostly have his back to goal whereas the more attacking will try to exploit space and mainly diagonally rather then trying to find space in the middle.

[RT--]

Sure, it just seems at odds with wwfan's quote as well as the in-game text... and just common sense!

In slider terms, the difference between a poacher/advanced forward seems to be only that a poacher is less likely to try a long shot, or a through ball (and has a little bit less creative freedom).

[Mr Enigma]

Sure, it just seems at odds with wwfan's quote as well as the in-game text... and just common sense!

In slider terms, the difference between a poacher/advanced forward seems to be only that a poacher is less likely to try a long shot, or a through ball (and has a little bit less creative freedom).

Yeah it's to make the striker more clinical. I mostly select poacher as my striker instruction as it's my favourite type. I don't use advanced striker that often to be honest and that's quite odd as it's the default striker type

[RT--]

Yeah, I'd just have thought that a poacher would stay in the middle, rather than drift out to the flanks.

[Zebedee77]

This is something I've wondered, actually - why does a poacher have 'move into channels' set as their wide play instruction?

The poacher is being encouraged to stay within direct striking distance of goal. The channels are the spaces between the centrebacks and the fullbacks.