A Twelve Step Guide towards Playing FM13 & Understanding the ME

[Gee_Simpson]

Great thread, wwfan

[isignedupfornorealreason]

in my Newcastle save i using the pre-set 442 and have only changed the players roles.

i have some success using the defensive strategy away from home and combining it with the Get the Ball Fowards / Hit Early Crosses and Hassle opposition shouts. The best results being a 0-1 victory at Old Trafford and winning by the same score against FC bayern in the Champions League.

Whilst the ME has its problems it is possible to get some good results and great passages of play by keeping it simple. WWfan and the guys in the Tactics forum are helpful and give some good advise (thanks guys), but alot of the time the people asking for the advise don't want to listen to the answers and prefer to jump on the ME is screwd up band wagon

That may be because, and I think Acktar probably displayed it fantastically well in this topic, that they get stonewalled particularly on these forums. I'm not WWFan's biggest fan (ho ho), though I'm aware of his work and so on and I've enjoyed reading the occasional essay off Cleon (if memory serves me right) on the tactical forums. But the one common denominator, whether that's through 'understanding' of the match engine and how to set up tactics and formations is that wwfan's point 1 in this topic is something that could be leveled right back at them and isn't diplomatically dealt with. So you end up with a bubbling over of frustration with two camps, one that defend the engine regardless of any flaws and whatever while the others aren't too impressed with it/or the stonewalling. I suppose there's the third camp of people who just want an I win button but meh.

Anyway the main argument I think needs looking at is that it really is time to simplify the game's engine somewhat or at the very least make it accessible. It's the same point that I advocated the moment TT+F were published, and I was an initial supporter of it in any event, because people want to slap on a tactic and see it work on the pitch without the need to sift through a ton of information. That doesn't mean simplifying the game beyond the capabilities of wwfan's technicalities and the TC goes some way to getting that balance right but there needs to be an option there (and no FMC isn't one) for those who want to enjoy the game with the least amount of work, because it is a game after all... I do think you can have something simple that everyone gets and can make work while still maintaining a depth and complexity that allows people to write massive essays on the game and jovially mock us peons whom have little heart for that sort of thing.

I'll give an example, I can/could formulate a simple 4-4-2 on FM12 that would garner reputable success. I made it so it overperformed and I never touched the sliders at all, I just slapped on the TC and fiddled around but the game presented what I wanted it to do. Wingers bombed down the wings, lots of crosses, good movement, space and so on. I could work from that to various other formations, a 4-5-1 for example, something I've never done before (and I only did cos I got this lovely regen English AMC the next 'gazza' so hey, why not?)

FM 13, at first I thought was going to continue the tradition but... positioning isn't right, the engine itself isn't right. It doesn't feel right, I don't know how to explain it but although I can win, I got to 4th with Wigan first season for gods sake it is too wild, too loose. It's not right, it needs more refinement. At the moment I've saved myself the aggro and gone back to FM12 as it's comfortable and sensible enough and I don't need the hassle of stressing out over Fm13 - and this is perhaps something that doesn't get recognized much but FM is a stressful game, it captures the emotions of managing very well, so it could perhaps do with not feeling like its working against you all the time hmm - I'll probably give FM13 another go in January and I'll probably crack the game with my own little experiments but until it feels 'right' it's probably not going to give me any enjoyment, and THAT is one thing I wish some people on here in particular would note and accept instead of blindly defending the game,because if I can accept both sides of an argument I wouldn't mind those who disagree with me accepting it too!

[wwfan]

But you have to admit that it's strange that Wilson's Counter attack doesn't really counter anything. This is from FM13 manual:

Counter Attack: The counter attack option is best used by an underdog facing a superior opponent or a team with players capable of launching attacks at high speed with a directness about their play. They will tend to sit back in their own half and allow the opposition to have the ball in 'harmless' positions before imposing pressure, taking the ball, and countering.

and this is in game info on counter strategy:

Manual offers no info on strategies.

This is where we'll get into the "requiring thousands of words to explain all the subtleties" problem again. Let's just use this as evidence that the TC does not force you down a single route of play, but offers many variations.

[Tactic Master]

wwfan, one piece of advice i'd ask from you... I've just gone through the TC and created my tactic (no slider messing) and i've decided to go with a Sweeper Keeper. Would you advise this or not? I've gone with a counter attacking type of tactic, so I thought this would go well and i've noticed in the past that a lot of balls get played right through my defence and it's something I feel the keeper himself can clear up? I'm not sure if that makes sense, but I know what I mean

[wwfan]

wwfan, one piece of advice i'd ask from you... I've just gone through the TC and created my tactic (no slider messing) and i've decided to go with a Sweeper Keeper. Would you advise this or not? I've gone with a counter attacking type of tactic, so I thought this would go well and i've noticed in the past that a lot of balls get played right through my defence and it's something I feel the keeper himself can clear up? I'm not sure if that makes sense, but I know what I mean

Give it a try. If it doesn't work as you hoped, then revert back. You'll need to play with the duties he has as well.

[Tactic Master]

Give it a try. If it doesn't work as you hoped, then revert back. You'll need to play with the duties he has as well.

I was a little worried at first, because although my keeper is good at rushing out, he's not as fast as i'd like. However, he's only 16 years old so I can focus on his speed over the next couple of seasons.

To summarise on my new tactic following what you have said, in my first game I have just won (2-0) and the players actually seem to do well in their specific roles and the roles seem to go well together and the two goals we scored were down to how I set the tactic up (without messing with sliders).

Just to make it clear, my team had lost it's last 8 games with some real hammerings along the way aswell (conceding 21 goals) and we only won 6 games all season last season. I'm not going to get my hopes up, but this certainly seems to be working.

[Mintah]

I was a little worried at first, because although my keeper is good at rushing out, he's not as fast as i'd like. However, he's only 16 years old so I can focus on his speed over the next couple of seasons.

To summarise on my new tactic following what you have said, in my first game I have just won (2-0) and the players actually seem to do well in their specific roles and the roles seem to go well together and the two goals we scored were down to how I set the tactic up (without messing with sliders).

Just to make it clear, my team had lost it's last 8 games with some real hammerings along the way aswell (conceding 21 goals) and we only won 6 games all season last season. I'm not going to get my hopes up, but this certainly seems to be working.

I may be wrong, but from what I understand, for GKs, their aerial ability takes into account on their aerial ability attribute and not their jumping attribute, and the speed at which they rush out only takes into account their rushing out attribute and not their acceleration or pace attributes.

[THOG]

But you have to admit that it's strange that Wilson's Counter attack doesn't really counter anything. This is from FM13 manual:

Counter Attack: The counter attack option is best used by an underdog facing a superior opponent or a team with players capable of launching attacks at high speed with a directness about their play. They will tend to sit back in their own half and allow the opposition to have the ball in 'harmless' positions before imposing pressure, taking the ball, and countering.

and this is in game info on counter strategy:

Manual offers no info on strategies.

The manual's description of the Counter Attack tactical option is just wrong. It has no effect whatsoever on defensive behavior. It simply increases the number of opposing players who can be behind the ball when your side decides to initiate the "counter attack" phase (mentality and tempo get temporarily set to the maximum setting, forward runs increase). This is why this option is selected for the Overload strategy as well.

The TC description, on the other hand, is merely intended to provide newcomers with a very simple recommendation for how to use the strategy without providing an exhaustive account of all the ways that individual strategy can be employed. In FM, Barca as a "counter" side makes sense, because their strategy is to keep the ball and then (a) slowly inch into the opposing third [against opponents playing defensively] or (b) launch a quick attack when enough of the opposition gets drawn forward [against opponents who are trying to press them in their own half]. The "counter attacking", in FM terms, comes from (b) where they look to strike quickly after drawing defenders out of position rather than slowly working the ball into the box while, in terms of (a), the Counter strategy works for them since the lower mentality means they won't be rushing to get the ball forward when there are 9 defenders in front of their midfield. The part about expecting "to lose the battle for possession" is a bit confusing since lower mentality strategies actually emphasize ball retention more since players are less likely to attempt risky passes. Again, the suggestion for when this strategy is "best employed" is just there for new players and shouldn't be interpreted as the one and only way to use the strategy. You are right that FM's concept of "Counter" technically doesn't have to "counter" anything, but the same can be said for the "counter attack" phase in FM. It is launched when your player has possession and there are only a few defenders between him and the goal. This is most likely to occur after your side has just gained possession, but it can also happen if you have a player behind defenders who have pushed forward to try to regain possession themselves.

[Tactic Master]

I may be wrong, but from what I understand, for GKs, their aerial ability takes into account on their aerial ability attribute and not their jumping attribute, and the speed at which they rush out only takes into account their rushing out attribute and not their acceleration or pace attributes.

I understand what your saying, but I would personally think that the rushing out stat would determine how good the keeper was at rushing out at the right time. Despite his ability to rush out at the right time, surely his pace and acceleration would determine on whether he would get to the ball before anyone else? He may run out at the right time, but maybe he's too slow at getting there and the striker is fast and gets there first?

[Tactic Master]

wwfan, would you agree that playing away or playing at home is a big factor aswell in choosing how you play?

I just did a test and with the tactic I used at home in the previous game to win (2-0), I got hammered (4-1). So I decided to go back and try again, switching the formation slightly to compensate for the oppositions determindly more attacking approach and instead of using counter strategy, I went with a Standard strategy. We won the game (2-1), which i'm sure you would agree is at the other end of the scale.

[wwfan]

wwfan, would you agree that playing away or playing at home is a big factor aswell in choosing how you play?

I just did a test and with the tactic I used at home in the previous game to win (2-0), I got hammered (4-1). So I decided to go back and try again, switching the formation slightly to compensate for the oppositions determindly more attacking approach and instead of using counter strategy, I went with a Standard strategy. We won the game (2-1), which i'm sure you would agree is at the other end of the scale.

Winning away is harder, which is as it should be. At home, you can usually impose your style. Away, you often have to react to the conditions and formations a bit more.

[Mintah]

I understand what your saying, but I would personally think that the rushing out stat would determine how good the keeper was at rushing out at the right time. Despite his ability to rush out at the right time, surely his pace and acceleration would determine on whether he would get to the ball before anyone else? He may run out at the right time, but maybe he's too slow at getting there and the striker is fast and gets there first?

I agree that that is how it should be. But I believe that I read somewhere on these forums a few years ago (when we had the GK positioning training bug) that that the match engine doesn't take physical attributes for GKs into account..

[BiggusD]

Which you can achieve with shouts and adjustments.

Your interpretation of counter seems to be on par with the Charleses (Reep and Hughes) theory of efficient football, which dominated British football in the 1980s.

And Dr. Egil Olsen, who dominated international football in the nineties.

[NakS]

I agree that that is how it should be. But I believe that I read somewhere on these forums a few years ago (when we had the GK positioning training bug) that that the match engine doesn't take physical attributes for GKs into account..

True, I remember that discussion as well. Jumping is not considered, Aerial ability is. Rushing out is a tendency attribute (like bravery, teamwork, flair, etc..) and it represents how likely GK is to go ahead to meet a ball played in space behind his backline when situation happens. If 1 he will almost always stay in the box, if 20 he will go out of the box very regularly. Other things come into play of course, like reading of the game (anticipation) and decision making (decisions). Basically, it is a bias when that sort of decision has to be made.

[luka_zg]

I may be wrong, but from what I understand, for GKs, their aerial ability takes into account on their aerial ability attribute and not their jumping attribute, and the speed at which they rush out only takes into account their rushing out attribute and not their acceleration or pace attributes.

well you can just check the highlighted attributes for a specific gk roles to see which ones are important?

[iciomn]

..ehm...i'm italian and i think that here we have a big misunderstanding about 'counter-attack strategy'. Reading the description and the name of this strategy is naturally to consider it as a modern 'contropiede' strategy (see Chelsea of Di Matteo - winner of CL or 3-4-2-1 of Mazzarri's Napoli) but reading wwfan it seems more a basic tiki taka approach paired with right 'shouts' .... i'm right?

[Mr. Eric Praline]

2: Unless you are 100% sure you know what each and every slider does and how they interact, abandon them. Don't manually tweak a single setting. Embrace the TC

This is basically what you need to do to avoid frustration.

I did it shortly after the TC was first introduced in FM. i was a "slider-junkie". Adding 2 notches here, removing 5 notches there. DC mentality 3 up etc etc.

2 problems with that approach:

1/You basically need to change 1 slider and then extensively test that new setting, without changng any others (otherwise you're never sure which slider caused the change...). Needless to say; this takes a lot of time and caused frustration as it might seem random/inconsistent.

2/It's nothing like how a real-life manager would adapt to a new match situation. It's too much 'playing the game' iso 'simulating real-life practices'. Don't get me wrong; even with the TC you are somewhat limited (we can only hope that the TC gets more shouts/parameters with FM14-15-.., the more the merrier.) but at least you're using 'football lingo' and not 'Sliderish'.

Now, when the TC first came out, my biggest problem (it became a quest for the Holy Grail) was to discover what sliders were changed by each TC instruction. 'Hmm, "dynamic"; is that "bands of two"?' So i checked with each change in the TC which sliders were affected. It drove me mad . I wanted to create a translating dictionary 'TC to sliders'. But I soon realised that there too many permutations to have this done in 1 lifetime (at least for a complete overview).

So i just jumped into the deep end (going all TC) ;I never looked back. I never ever since that day touched a slider.

I just create a tactic based on the players I have at hand. Tweak after a couple of games 'Box to box midfielder --> Playmaker' 'Balanced --> Attacking' 'Direct passing --> Mixed Passing'. I also set up a wide array of shouts to cope with going a goal down, having a red card, having to park to bus, etc.

And guess what: it works. I don't win every match I play. But at least when I lose a game I have a sense I understand what went wrong. "My tactic is ok, but opposition was too strong' or 'I should have gone on the counter after my second goal as I gave away too much space in my back'

So, I'm now actually blaming myself (or at least realising I made some mistakes) iso blaming the ME.

In other words: I watched a football match.

I'm currently playing with Olsa Brakel (Belgian 3rd div = Lower League). We were projected to end 18th (dead last). After 15 matches I'm in 3rd place. Playing counter-attacking. And I'm no tactical genius; I'm just using the TC/shouts to adapt to new situations/opponents.

If I can do this, anybody can do it.

Thanks again wwfan for the time/patience you put into this wonderful game.

I, for one, found the door you talked about #neo

[wwfan]

..ehm...i'm italian and i think that here we have a big misunderstanding about 'counter-attack strategy'. Reading the description and the name of this strategy is naturally to consider it as a modern 'contropiede' strategy (see Chelsea of Di Matteo - winner of CL or 3-4-2-1 of Mazzarri's Napoli) but reading wwfan it seems more a basic tiki taka approach paired with right 'shouts' .... i'm right?

It can be both.

[milnerpoint]

That post sums up myself over the past few years since the TC came into play, well done

[Macon]

The thing about 'always have one attacking duty in defence' is that the TC doesn't give you that: if you're playing with a back 4, it always puts the full-backs on an auto duty (ie they mimic the teams overall strategy)...

[Herbert Fandel]

The thing about 'always have one attacking duty in defence' is that the TC doesn't give you that: if you're playing with a back 4, it always puts the full-backs on an auto duty (ie they mimic the teams overall strategy)...

But then you can change it to attack?

[wwfan]

The thing about 'always have one attacking duty in defence' is that the TC doesn't give you that: if you're playing with a back 4, it always puts the full-backs on an auto duty (ie they mimic the teams overall strategy)...

It won't spoon feed you

[Macon]

Heh. Fair enough!

[luka_zg]

After reading this thread, I have tweaked my 4-2-3-1 that I use with Betis and..8 games played,5 won and much much better football played by my team.. Prior to this it was 5 wins in 17 matches. So thank you for your hard work here wwwfan FM13 is the first edition that forced me to dwell deeper in to tactic aspect of the game to have some success and I am glad it did. I now have attacking tactic that attacks how i want, direct,fast and with flair, and also more defensive one which defends and is more disciplined going forward. and I can really see how different these two play out and it gives me a level of satisfaction I didn't really have in previous versions of the game. Great job SI. This ME will eventually become brilliant!

[max787]

4: Focus on roles and duties in the TC. Make sure you have one Attack duty in defence, one Attack and one Defend in midfield, and one Support in attack (especially if you have a lone FC). Make sure you have at least one no-nonsense, hard-working midfielder role. If you want to use a PM, will he be in the best position to hurt players, or will your approach see him isolated (see point eleven). More detail here.

I have a question regarding the 4-5-1 (4-1-2-2-1) and your interpretation on whether the AML + AMR are a part of the midfield or the attack.

I currently set up like this:

Balanced

Control

More direct

More pressing

Aggressive tackling

GK - GKd

DR - WBs

DC - CBd

DC - CBd

DL - WBs

DMC - DLPd

MCR - BWMd

MCL - AVPs

AMR - Ws

AML - IFa

ST - AFa

I personally consider the AMR + AML to be attackers, not midfielders, so that means that I don't have an attacking role in midfield, I also lack an attacking role in defense, so should I change this? Or does this system look sufficiently coherent to leave it the way it is?

I think that it looks quite balanced:

I have 2 goalscorers (IF + AF)

2 creators (AVPs + Ws)

1 destroyer (BWMd)

1 defensive player who is also a passing threat from deep (DLPd)

Even though this doesn't follow your guidelines, it looks good to me, and it has played fairly well so far, but I'm open to all and any suggestions as I'd like to improve it if it all possible

EDIT: Great thread by the way, thanks for taking the time to write it up!

[BigFW]

(mumbling to the floor)

" Hi,my name is BigFW and I'm a Slider Addict and I have preconcieved ideas..."

Been playing since '93 and have shunned the TC. I read the phrase 'Trust the TC' and last night took the plunge after a particularly poor run of performances. Had a stunning victory and the way we played looked 'right'. Its only my first game but the hope is rekindled, hopefully it will stay alight! Thank you wwfan, your posts are always worth the read.

[jdrawmer]

Excellent thread and subsequent thread feedback here for those wanting to get to grips with the game.

In the past I have been a sucker for just downloading a set of ME exploit tactics and playing the game without much thought. Mainly this was because having tried in the past i've felt that the ME of previous games didn't give much visual feedback as to what was wrong, and even less feedback as to if your changes were doing anything. This time around I changed all that and with logic basically came to a similar set of rules. What I set up before a game and change within it are clear to see. Sometimes my changes might backfire but you learn from that and you can at least see why they failed.

I'm in the bottom tier of swedish football with a team expected to finish 8th (media prediction) and my job to avoid relegation. My squad is about average for the league if not a little weak but i'm top of the league because I built a tactical system around my players and circumstances as a fairly weak team.

strong defensively (4-5-1) with a mainly cautious but counter attacking approach I think i'm getting things right. My best player is a target man style with not the best finishing and I have set him up as such (TM/S) and he does the job perfectly. Great assists, fair share of goals but mainly he links up the play exactly as you'd hope and expect.

Even the games I have lost have been tight and I can't express how much it adds to the game and how little you actually have to do.

I agree with some that the sliders just add confusion to those that haven't concentrated on tactics in the past. It gives the impression to the player that they SHOULD know more, and suggests (without saying it), that to REALLY achieve you probably should learn them. Now we know that's total rubbish. Explaining that would be a lot better though.

[Tactic Master]

I'm actually starting to think your some kind of genious wwfan If I hadn't read your thread, i'd still be stuck losing game after game and watching goal after goal slide past my keeper.

Despite restarting my second game as a test to see how to get around my problem with playing teams away (winning it on the second try), i've managed to win my other two matches first time.

It seems that my team is a bit of a hybrid and it's unclear as to whether a physical approach or technical approach is required. In my previous match I had to switch to a Physical approach at half time and we turned things around. In my match i've just played, I had to switch from a Physical to a Technical approach. I suppose it all depends on the opposition players and maybe I need to take the time to look at them prior to a match rather than jumping straight in and picking a style, maybe then I could make it (5-1) instead of the (3-1) it ended as.

[Svenc]

The manual's description of the Counter Attack tactical option is just wrong. It has no effect whatsoever on defensive behavior. It simply increases the number of opposing players who can be behind the ball when your side decides to initiate the "counter attack" phase (mentality and tempo get temporarily set to the maximum setting, forward runs increase). This is why this option is selected for the Overload strategy as well.

This has been the most blatant example of how SI complicated people's understanding of the sliders for years - it took people to notice a post from PaulC to find out that ticking the counter attack box was actually nothing at all to what is being described in the manual to this day. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, it's a bit of a nightmare to really figure out every slider, as they interlink and various different settings can produce similar behavior. As such it is very difficult to document the effects of each slider individually; it can't be done. Personally I always remind myself of that when in possession there are but a few choices a player gets to make when he isn't forced to clear the ball: either recycling possession or initiating an attack, both with various levels of risk/reward involvements, with the sliders put to the far right indicating more risk (e.g. tempo being the exception) and sliders put to the far left indicating the more risk-adverse. I was always of the opinion that people who worried about adjusting but a few notches in between their settings were a tad too obsessed and anal in their thinking, but that is just me. I'm not convinced all SI staff know the intricates of the system themselves, as realistically, there is a reason for the TC, and that is not welcoming newcomers with a tactics-wizard first and foremost, but above all applying football logics to an AI and tactical UI that made it massively difficult for even experienced users to come up with something really useful, even if it was just a simple tactics, not an array of strategies, shouts (modifiers) and roles centered around a coherent concept.

[Mr. Eric Praline]

And now we're touching on one of the weak points of FM...

The manual.

I understand that SI don't won't to spoil the game by providing a walkthrough that will have you win the CL with Dover in 2019.

But reallly... A game this complex and played by so many people which all have a subjective (and hence different) understanding of football, accompanied by a manual like the FM series is a recipe for disaster and frustration. for many, many gamers.

I appreciate the effort/time/money that would go into a full size manual (remember the pc-manuals from the nineties?), but I really believe that a complete rewrite/rethinking of the manual would be a massive help for everyone who is confused.

I feel that too many good additions were added in FM wthout proper documentation.

The result is confusion/frustration with a lot of gamers.

(One could argue that the same holds true about real football and the fans )

[Spart]

I posted it as a suggestion in the new features thread, but I think it'd be helpful if wwfan and other FM tactical experts were commissioned to write a guide each year to accompany each FM, falling somewhere between this thread and Tactical Theorems.

It wouldn't have to be a print out - a pdf would do - and I think it'd help to straighten out a lot of misconceptions about how to constructively approach the game.

[Mr. Eric Praline]

I posted it as a suggestion in the new features thread, but I think it'd be helpful if wwfan and other FM tactical experts were commissioned to write a guide each year to accompany each FM, falling somewhere between this thread and Tactical Theorems.

It wouldn't have to be a print out - a pdf would do - and I think it'd help to straighten out a lot of misconceptions about how to constructively approach the game.

Agreed; would be great.

However, a lot of people are also confused about scouting, tranining, transfers, youth development, etc.

I would love to see a full blown **official** manual/guide for FM.

I believe SI don't really want this to happen, as it would lessen the output of fansite-content and harm the community in some way.

Too bad.

[Sweed]

wwfan

First thanks for all of the help you offer here in these forums. This American, knowing nothing about football, started playing FM in 2006. Went through a lot of frustrations trying to learn the real game of football and also FM. Your TT&F posts and also the one or two times you helped me out personally have added so much to my ability to both play and enjoy FM. It is much appreciated. I do have a couple of questions regarding "step 3".

A Little Context

3: Become aware that the strategy names are more plastic than they seem. The defensive strategy still attacks on the counter, whereas the attacking strategy can still be defensively solid. Bar the two extremes (Contain and Overload), each strategy is both defensive and attacking. A good rule of thumb is that if you want to play with a lot of deep midfielders and a short passing game, choose a less attacking strategy, whereas if you want to have high, effective wingers and a direct style, choose a more attacking strategy.

Lets say I have an owner that expects "attacking\pretty" football from me as manager but I find with a defensive\counter type tactic I actually control the match better and still score a good number of goals...

Any idea if the board will become dissatisfied with my running of the team since I am playing a defensive style even though once in possession I am playing a nice looking short passing ball control game that results in a good number of goals scored?

In other words do you know if the board simply looks at whether my "normal" tactic is assigned as attacking, control, counter, or defensive and uses that as the guide to whether I'm complying with their playing style expectations? Or do they look at more than that such as wins, points, goals scored along with goal differential etc?

Choose and save three core strategies for your trained tactics, but don't worry about the reserve ones or how well trained they are. Just focus on a specific style and use that as your base tactic in all matches until you are becoming more confident about your decision making. .

(A.) I've struggled with how to allocate my three tactic slots to practice since FM went to this model 2? versions ago. Is one better off developing three 4-4-2 (or whatever formation one uses) tactics say..attacking\standard\counter? Then once the team becomes proficient in their use add other formations?

(B.) Or should one be developing three different formations IE 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-4-1-1 using your teams "default" strategy? That is if I am expected and want to be an attacking team use attack strategy for all formations I practice and only use shouts in game to go counter, control, defensive etc.?

(C.) Same as option B but use a different strategy for each tactic one is practicing? That is, train 3 different formations all with different strategies?

I'm gathering from your step #3 above one should do option B or C. As for me I have done it all three ways and would be interested to hear how you think one should go about it.

Thanks.

[gechal]

I guess but saying that a lone striker should always be in support duty just does not seem tactically sound. Would you put Mario Gomez in support duty? Falcao?

That part of it is down to his opinion on what works best. I agree with you, I would like my striker to be leading the line on the shoulder of the centre back. It's up to the others to give him the service.

This can only work well if you have the players capable of giving him chances. If you are up against a good side away from home, your one striker can end up being isolated up on his own. This is where the thinking that it would be best to have a deep lying forward on support comes in. To be able to get more involved, because the team are not capable of creati g the chances for a striker who is just there to score.

In real life, this type of poacher striker is becoming more and more rare. It seems the game has evolved, and the lone forward is the prefered way to go. A lot more is expected of this player he has to be involved in deeper positions.

Look at spurs, one striker up top. Do you go with Defoe , a born preditor, who given the chance will score most of the time? But might not get given those chances? Or adebayor, who is a more rounded " footballer" who will do more for the team? ( when he can be botherd).

I feel for the likes of Defoe , he has tried to adapt his game, but modern formations mean there will always be a doubt at the start of a game about how much he will be involved.

Anyway, I like to play with a poacher on his own up top, and it is up to the rest of the team to supply him with chances, not to have to go about creating them for himself and others. A bit old fashioned maybe, but there you go.

[Ackter]

The point is that your formation has to be balanced, which is what wwfan has described here.

If you want your striker to be a lone attack duty player then that's fine, but you'll need to make allowances elsewhere in the tactics to support him properly and still keep your team working together.

[gechal]

The point is that your formation has to be balanced, which is what wwfan has described here.

If you want your striker to be a lone attack duty player then that's fine, but you'll need to make allowances elsewhere in the tactics to support him properly and still keep your team working together.

And there is the challenge!

[DMX]

Won't be able to thank everyone for their positive comments, so I'll reply to you as a group thanks, largely because you are the type of user I'm most trying to target (passionate about FM, knowledgable about football, struggling to mix the two). Firstly, glad you are having fun on FM again. Secondly, can you expand on what you mean by "real football". Thirdly, thanks again for the positive comment. They really do make all the abuse I get worthwhile.

No problem on the feedback front you and a couple of other members have really opened my eyes up to FM13, i really am enjoying every minute i get to play of the game now. As for my real football comment i really do feel the flow of the game is much better in this version the build up play just looks more real than in other versions ie players not always having full control of the ball but just managing to keep the ball in play, also i can really see an improvement on players not running through defenders anymore witch really adds to the realism there is so much more i could mention

I just really hope SI don't give up and bow to all the people that want the game to go back to the old ME ways witch IMO was unrealistic football.

[HUNT3R]

I've seen a few people query point 4, so I'll try to clarify in some detail.

If you have a back four, a good rule of thumb is to have the following setup:

DR (Attack) DC (Defend/Cover/Stopper), DC (Defend/Cover/Stopper), DL (Support)

This ensures that the defence is linked to the midfield and the attack, as it encourages the FBs/WBs to move between the lines. In general, it shouldn't lead to your being hurt on the counter, because you will have one midfielder on a Defend duty to cover the breaking Attack duty FB.

There are, as always, exceptions to the rule. If you want to build a defensive counter system, you might want to have both FBs on an Attack duty, as having them break forward quickly will be vital to having successful counter attacks. If you play a very aggressive system, you might want to have both FBs on Support duties, so they provide a platform behind the five players in attacking positions (in fact, I'd recommend it). Likewise, as point eleven suggests, an AP in an Attacking strategy is a waste of time, as he gets too far ahead of play to pull any strings. If you want a playmaker, employ a DLP, as he'll tend to sit a little deeper and dictate the game. If your FBs are on Support duties, he'll interact with them behind the five players looking for space in and around the box, whereas if they are on Attack duties, they'll often be too far forward for him to use and he'll be isolated.

I can obviously only speak for myself, but this is where I don't feel I understand "duties" as well as I thought I did. The double FB Attack when playing a counter strategy is something I never would have thought of as it's a "defensive" strategy in my mind. So I would not have assigned an Attack duty, let alone two, in a tactic that I view as defensive. It's obviously my fault for missing something that seems obvious now when you point it out, but the game could do a better job of explaining concepts like this better. I'm aware that it's a point that has been brought up a lot recently, but hopefully with a lot of people bringing this up, it will be looked at for future versions.

[Ainu]

I've seen a few people query point 4, so I'll try to clarify in some detail.

If you have a back four, a good rule of thumb is to have the following setup:

DR (Attack) DC (Defend/Cover/Stopper), DC (Defend/Cover/Stopper), DL (Support)

This ensures that the defence is linked to the midfield and the attack, as it encourages the FBs/WBs to move between the lines. In general, it shouldn't lead to your being hurt on the counter, because you will have one midfielder on a Defend duty to cover the breaking Attack duty FB.

There are, as always, exceptions to the rule. If you want to build a defensive counter system, you might want to have both FBs on an Attack duty, as having them break forward quickly will be vital to having successful counter attacks. If you play a very aggressive system, you might want to have both FBs on Support duties, so they provide a platform behind the five players in attacking positions (in fact, I'd recommend it). Likewise, as point eleven suggests, an AP in an Attacking strategy is a waste of time, as he gets too far ahead of play to pull any strings. If you want a playmaker, employ a DLP, as he'll tend to sit a little deeper and dictate the game. If your FBs are on Support duties, he'll interact with them behind the five players looking for space in and around the box, whereas if they are on Attack duties, they'll often be too far forward for him to use and he'll be isolated.

To answer Matt's specific question, it doesn't matter exactly who you put on which duty in a 4-2-3-1. This decision is all about where you want to create space.

Option One: MCL (Defend), MCR (Support), AMC (Attack)

The MCL and MCR provide a supporting base for the AMC to break into attack. Main creative responsibility is the MC strata, as the AMC is more of a goalscoring threat.

Option Two: MCL (Defend), MCR (Attack), AMC (Support)

The three players interact a little more, with all having some creative responsibility. However, at times, the MCR will break from deep ahead of the AMC.

I'm interested in the part about an AP in an Attacking strategy being a waste of time. Do you mean an AP on any duty in an attacking strategy, or an AP on attack duty in an attacking system.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm wondering about players like David Silva. Would you say he's not an AP in an attacking system at City? Because that's what he seems to me intuitively. Or would you describe City's system as being more conservative than attacking? Translating those things to FM is my main problem.

[Apos]

OK, all nice and rosy and I truly appreciate that you are trying to explain to more people how to get into the game and most likely get immersed with it,I really do.

But I also have one question regarding your 2nd step,the one about sliders: Which slider controls the tendency of my strikers trying to pierce the AI goalkeeper's soul?

Sarcasm aside now.

This has been a problem ever since FM11 and I'm getting tired of the "it's your tactics" argument regarding this one. If I create CCC,then obviously my tactics are correct, yet my players keep thinking that the best way to get the ball is through the keeper's chest. It's getting seriously annoying.

I fully understand that the ME tries to keep the scoreline that is determined at the setting up within realistic limits, but this is highly annoying. I'd much rather have those chances not created at all or miss, rather than seeing my strikers shooting the ball right onto the keeper 5-10 times per game.

I can live with late game equalisers. (although I don't agree with them happening a bit too often. Both teams are supposed to be tired, yet this doesn't seem to be the case most of the time)

I can live with the above average injuries rate. (although I'd love to see the injury system improved. A player losing acc/pace or strength from a skull injury doesn't seem very realistic to me. As far as I can tell he can still do some conditioning training on both his arms and his legs. Same goes for losing pace for a broken finger,etc.)

What I can't live with is what I previously mentioned and I'd personally loved if it was something that the moderators stopped defending and rather try to remind SI a little more often about it. Yes, it's obviously "our tactics", but the way the ME shows it is completely misleading. If I am dominating a match, creating excellent chances,yet the ME refuses to allow them to be goals because the scoreline would go out of line then there is nothing I,the user, can do about it. Obviously the user can't correct his/her mistakes when the feedback is not good enough to point them out.

[wwfan]

wwfan

First thanks for all of the help you offer here in these forums. This American, knowing nothing about football, started playing FM in 2006. Went through a lot of frustrations trying to learn the real game of football and also FM. Your TT&F posts and also the one or two times you helped me out personally have added so much to my ability to both play and enjoy FM. It is much appreciated. I do have a couple of questions regarding "step 3".

Lets say I have an owner that expects "attacking\pretty" football from me as manager but I find with a defensive\counter type tactic I actually control the match better and still score a good number of goals...

Any idea if the board will become dissatisfied with my running of the team since I am playing a defensive style even though once in possession I am playing a nice looking short passing ball control game that results in a good number of goals scored?

In other words do you know if the board simply looks at whether my "normal" tactic is assigned as attacking, control, counter, or defensive and uses that as the guide to whether I'm complying with their playing style expectations? Or do they look at more than that such as wins, points, goals scored along with goal differential etc?

I'd imagine it was shot count, as that's what the fans react to. I'm not sure though. Might want to bring it up in a separate thread so the SI bod that worked on it can answer.

(A.) I've struggled with how to allocate my three tactic slots to practice since FM went to this model 2? versions ago. Is one better off developing three 4-4-2 (or whatever formation one uses) tactics say..attacking\standard\counter? Then once the team becomes proficient in their use add other formations?

(B.) Or should one be developing three different formations IE 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-4-1-1 using your teams "default" strategy? That is if I am expected and want to be an attacking team use attack strategy for all formations I practice and only use shouts in game to go counter, control, defensive etc.?

(C.) Same as option B but use a different strategy for each tactic one is practicing? That is, train 3 different formations all with different strategies?

I'm gathering from your step #3 above one should do option B or C. As for me I have done it all three ways and would be interested to hear how you think one should go about it.

I train three tactics that focus on the extreme of styles. Currently, I am training three variants of a 4-4-2, one flat, one with two DMCs, an ML and an MR, and one with two MCs, an AMl and an AMR. Each one has a different strategy and a different set of adjustments. The deep 4-4-2 is all about short passing and creativity, whereas the 4-2-4 is all about direct, aggressive play. The central one is vanilla, which I then adjust to suit my team's specific strengths (e.g. fast defence + hard working midfield = press more). This is my starting strategy, and I tend to stick with it for 90% of my matches.

I have a series of shout strategies set up (e.g. impose my own style, bad pitch/weather, friendlies), which I employ at the beginning of matches. Because I'm training all styles, my players can adapt to each shout very well.

Now I'm settled into the game, I'm beginning to use my saved alternate tactics a little more. However, I went from the BSN to L1 without ever switching or having to switch to one.

[wwfan]

I can obviously only speak for myself, but this is where I don't feel I understand "duties" as well as I thought I did. The double FB Attack when playing a counter strategy is something I never would have thought of as it's a "defensive" strategy in my mind. So I would not have assigned an Attack duty, let alone two, in a tactic that I view as defensive. It's obviously my fault for missing something that seems obvious now when you point it out, but the game could do a better job of explaining concepts like this better. I'm aware that it's a point that has been brought up a lot recently, but hopefully with a lot of people bringing this up, it will be looked at for future versions.

I'm not surprised. When we first conceptualised the TC, I didn't think this way either. However, as the ME has become more and more sophisticated, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the strategy names need to be more plastic. It is relatively easy to build a creative, fluent, quite attacking system using the Defend strategy if you have the right roles and duties. Likewise, get the wrong roles and duties in an Attacking system, and it will be impotent (or the right ones and defensively sound).

I'm not sure if I have an answer for this 'plasticity' problem. The only thing I can suggest is be aware of the plasticity and play around with attacking ideas in more defensive strategies and visa versa. I think you'll have fun doing it as well.

[wwfan]

I'm interested in the part about an AP in an Attacking strategy being a waste of time. Do you mean an AP on any duty in an attacking strategy, or an AP on attack duty in an attacking system.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm wondering about players like David Silva. Would you say he's not an AP in an attacking system at City? Because that's what he seems to me intuitively. Or would you describe City's system as being more conservative than attacking? Translating those things to FM is my main problem.

I would say that City don't employ an attacking system (at least in FM terms). I think they play a more controlled system, in which an AP would prosper.

My best advice about the AP in an attacking system is to try it and watch through a full match. In my team, he gets too far ahead of play and is useless. This might not happen with really good players, or players with the right PPMs, as their movement might prevent it. However, he might also be useless. You'll never know until you've tried. The important thing is knowing what to look out for.

[wwfan]

This has been a problem ever since FM11 and I'm getting tired of the "it's your tactics" argument regarding this one. If I create CCC,then obviously my tactics are correct, yet my players keep thinking that the best way to get the ball is through the keeper's chest. It's getting seriously annoying.

I fully understand that the ME tries to keep the scoreline that is determined at the setting up within realistic limits, but this is highly annoying. I'd much rather have those chances not created at all or miss, rather than seeing my strikers shooting the ball right onto the keeper 5-10 times per game.

I can live with late game equalisers. (although I don't agree with them happening a bit too often. Both teams are supposed to be tired, yet this doesn't seem to be the case most of the time)

I can live with the above average injuries rate. (although I'd love to see the injury system improved. A player losing acc/pace or strength from a skull injury doesn't seem very realistic to me. As far as I can tell he can still do some conditioning training on both his arms and his legs. Same goes for losing pace for a broken finger,etc.)

What I can't live with is what I previously mentioned and I'd personally loved if it was something that the moderators stopped defending and rather try to remind SI a little more often about it. Yes, it's obviously "our tactics", but the way the ME shows it is completely misleading. If I am dominating a match, creating excellent chances,yet the ME refuses to allow them to be goals because the scoreline would go out of line then there is nothing I,the user, can do about it. Obviously the user can't correct his/her mistakes when the feedback is not good enough to point them out.

Therein lies your problem. This doesn't happen. Until you accept that, then I'm forced to refer you to Point One of the OP.

[Apos]

Therein lies your problem. This doesn't happen. Until you accept that, then I'm forced to refer you to Point One of the OP.

No, you can't refer me to point one, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. First of all,you don't seem to have read my whole post, since I actually do point out that the first point is correct on my previous reply.

When the ME doesn't show any mistakes happening, I can't find any mistakes to correct. Obviously though, those mistakes do exist.

If the ME shows my team dominating and creating excellent chances that a child would score with, yet the strikers keep on hitting it straight to the keeper's chest, that's not something that can be explained as "bad tactics". The only possible explanation is stupidity in behalf of the strikers, since you'd expect them to know that they are playing football and not dodge ball.

The feedback from the ME is bad or lackluster in many occasions. You can't expect people to correct a mistake when they don't have the information about why that mistake is happening. That's a problem that I've been trying to explain for the past 2 versions now, but oh well, I've already got 1 infraction for doing so, then another 2 for taking it personal to the moderator who thought that I deserved one because I reacted negatively,trying to explain that the tips given were not working.

Mind you, I don't have a problem winning right now, but I did have 2 years ago. My point is, the game did and still does not offer enough feedback to what is wrong to the user. That's one thing that needs improvement and that in my opinion the moderators should press on as well. I am fully aware that most moderators are long time players are old timers and have a better insight on the game,but not everyone is and I can fully understand why someone would be angered when something goes wrong and there is limited explanation on why it goes wrong.

[wwfan]

No, you can't refer me to point one, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. First of all,you don't seem to have read my whole post, since I actually do point out that the first point is correct on my previous reply.

When the ME doesn't show any mistakes happening, I can't find any mistakes to correct. Obviously though, those mistakes do exist.

If the ME shows my team dominating and creating excellent chances that a child would score with, yet the strikers keep on hitting it straight to the keeper's chest, that's not something that can be explained as "bad tactics". The only possible explanation is stupidity in behalf of the strikers, since you'd expect them to know that they are playing football and not dodge ball.

The feedback from the ME is bad or lackluster in many occasions. You can't expect people to correct a mistake when they don't have the information about why that mistake is happening. That's a problem that I've been trying to explain for the past 2 versions now, but oh well, I've already got 1 infraction for doing so, then another 2 for taking it personal to the moderator who thought that I deserved one because I reacted negatively,trying to explain that the tips given were not working.

Mind you, I don't have a problem winning right now, but I did have 2 years ago. My point is, the game did and still does not offer enough feedback to what is wrong to the user. That's one thing that needs improvement and that in my opinion the moderators should press on as well. I am fully aware that most moderators are long time players are old timers and have a better insight on the game,but not everyone is and I can fully understand why someone would be angered when something goes wrong and there is limited explanation on why it goes wrong.

I can accept that it can be frustrating to create lots of CCCs and not score. I'm not fond of the CCC stat as, until it is conservative rather than liberal, it hinders rather than helps. It is getting a lot better though. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is goals, not CCCs. Your interpretation of why CCCs don't lead to goals is wrong, which is why I referred you to Point One. If you forgot about them and only focused on the stuff described in Points Two through Twelve, you'd be having a much more enjoyable time and would begin to work out why you weren't winning.

[Apos]

I can accept that it can be frustrating to create lots of CCCs and not score. I'm not fond of the CCC stat as, until it is conservative rather than liberal, it hinders rather than helps. It is getting a lot better though. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is goals, not CCCs. Your interpretation of why CCCs don't lead to goals is wrong, which is why I referred you to Point One. If you forgot about them and only focused on the stuff described in Points Two through Twelve, you'd be having a much more enjoyable time and would begin to work out why you weren't winning.

Yep,I'm aware that the CCC stat has been extremely misleading over the past few years. Which I think is something that needs addressing.

I'm personally enjoying FM at the moment, but it hasn't been a long time since I did not (FM11, hated it) and I can fully understand those who don't. Ye, some people just refuse to accept their mistakes,I can't deny that, but really often the mistakes are barely visible even for those who try to learn something.

My example is one of those cases where you just can't understand what's going on. Strikers aiming for keepers is not something that someone would expect to be connected with tactics and it is baffling to even think of that being the case, someone would expect that shot placing would be more connected with the player stats, yet this happens with LLM and world-class players alike.

That's why I think that ME feedback should be one of the main things to focus on in later versions of the game. It has been a little bit better this year (despite the rough ME), but there are still a couple areas that could use a little more of information on what is going wrong with the players.

[mmitch19]

Good thread and pretty much aligns with the way I try to approach the game. I am enjoying FM13 far more than 11 and 12 which, with my more time limited circumstances I'd found it hard to get into.

For me the issue that needs addressing for the "average" player is feedback/guidance on what's going wrong. For example, I thought one of my players was up to the task of playing as a stopper and had made that change. This destroyed the shape of my defence as he wasn't as successful as I thought and his CB partner didn't have the skills to cover effectively, compounding the issue.

The reality is this one change turned a relagation predicted team from a team playing at a level to be playoff challengers, to a team making the kind of defensive mistakes that define relagation candidates.

I have no problem with, in certain circumstances, one key issue making a big difference to results, in fact I think it's great and realistic. However for acessability the game could do with a better/clearer feedback mechanism to support players over time to find and correct these. This would I think go a long way to providing a learning curve for players that would alleviate a lot of the frustration.

[THOG]

So if the TC and its concepts are so vital to constructing a coherent tactic, why are AI tactics set using either classic tactics settings determined by researchers (who typically don't assign tactical attributes with TC principles in mind) or a random number generator (in the case of newgen managers and managers with no assigned attributes)? Doesn't this mean that, even with shouts, AI tactics are going to be fundamentally flawed for the vast majority of clubs?

[themadsheep2001]

So if the TC and its concepts are so vital to constructing a coherent tactic, why are AI tactics set using either classic tactics settings determined by researchers (who typically don't assign tactical attributes with TC principles in mind) or a random number generator (in the case of newgen managers and managers with no assigned attributes)? Doesn't this mean that, even with shouts, AI tactics are going to be fundamentally flawed for the vast majority of clubs?

Pretty sure the AI uses the TC, based on the formations set by researchers?