FM14 - New Tactical Elements

[wwfan]

Whilst I have some time for the argument that a TQ = Enganche and DLP = Regista, as I've always treated them synonymously, I do think ceefax has gone off track with the rest of his point. Whilst he may be right in his interpretation, he may also be wrong. I haven't seen any definitive guide to the differences between a TQ and Enganche, so "knowing" how they differ is a big call to make.

What the extra roles will do is allow the AI and user to design different systems. Want a fixed point 3/4 playmaker, choose the Enganche. Want him to drift, choose the TQ (or the other way around). Want a more stacitc, holding DLP, then choose the DLP/D. ant one that surges into attack, then choose the DLP/S. Want a laterally drifting DLP, then choose the Regista.

I don't see how this extra depth is problematic, even if you don't exactly agree with the definitions.

[ceefax the cat]

Likewise, if it became fashionable for liberos to stay in front of the defence, or not to bring the ball out, you'd stop calling them liberos because they wouldn't be anymore

[ceefax the cat]

The definitions aren't a major problem, just a mild annoyance. That's the 'spelling Nazi' part of my brain kicking in.

The other stuff is a problem though... I still don't think, in 20 years, that we've found the most logical way of issuing tactical instructions in this game. There's still a lot of opacity, a lot of hopefully meddling with options and sliders to little actual effect, while the TC I find saps a little bit of the satisfaction out of building a team. It's absolutely necessary from the point of view of casual gaming, but I'd love to see the underlying interface given some more thought

[Cleon]

The definitions aren't a major problem, just a mild annoyance. That's the 'spelling Nazi' part of my brain kicking in.

The other stuff is a problem though... I still don't think, in 20 years, that we've found the most logical way of issuing tactical instructions in this game. There's still a lot of opacity, a lot of hopefully meddling with options and sliders to little actual effect, while the TC I find saps a little bit of the satisfaction out of building a team. It's absolutely necessary from the point of view of casual gaming, but I'd love to see the underlying interface given some more thought

So you are saying sliders could be a bit hit and miss yet 10 minutes ago suggested the game should have more. Why would you want more adding if by your own admissions you felt at times they had little bearing on what you was actually trying to do? It just doesn't make sense. Surely the better option would be trying something different and work from that and see how it goes I.E FM14?

[wwfan]

The definitions aren't a major problem, just a mild annoyance. That's the 'spelling Nazi' part of my brain kicking in.

The other stuff is a problem though... I still don't think, in 20 years, that we've found the most logical way of issuing tactical instructions in this game. There's still a lot of opacity, a lot of hopefully meddling with options and sliders to little actual effect, while the TC I find saps a little bit of the satisfaction out of building a team. It's absolutely necessary from the point of view of casual gaming, but I'd love to see the underlying interface given some more thought

That's where I completely disagree. We proved that the TC was a far more powerful tool than static slider creation in FML. Users employing the TC and match plans massively overachieved against static tactical approaches.

The TC is not a casual gamer tool. It is a powerful and highly dynamic way of playing that requires a major mindset change before people appreciate it. It is far, far more powerful than micro tweaking sliders.

[Hansen2212]

For me a "shadow-striker" would have to originate from Dutch football and in particular Ajax, for the forward that plays behind their main Striker, many people would refer to it as a no. 10 today, but I remember the "Schaduwspits" as more of a forward that would arrive late in the box and be a goal threat much more than a playmaking no. 10.

To me the players that would fit the role would be, Litmanen at Ajax, Tomasson at Feynoord.

Some people mention Bergkamp, which would have to be the position he played at Arsenal more so than what his position was at Ajax where he was the main striker.

I checked the Dutch version of wikipedia and found this description if anyone is interested, im sure people can use google translate if unable to understand it.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schaduwspits

[llama3]

I never felt Bergkamp was a shadow striker, as I feel a shadow striker comes from a slightly deeper position to be the main goalscoring threat - Bergkamp was never the main goalscoring threat ever at Arsenal. It was always Wright, Anelka, Henry, Wiltord etc

[Braumiller]

...............What the extra roles will do is allow the AI and user to design different systems. Want a fixed point 3/4 playmaker, choose the Enganche. Want him to drift, choose the TQ (or the other way around). Want a more stacitc, holding DLP, then choose the DLP/D. ant one that surges into attack, then choose the DLP/S. Want a laterally drifting DLP, then choose the Regista............

Have read through this thread with interest and the quoted passage above from wwfan is absolutely key. Not just for what he says, both concisely and helpfully, but because it both highlights one of SI's biggest flaws in Football Manager for many many years and shows how easy it would be fix.

Role definition.

We can all argue until we are out of breath on details (and this is an internet messageboard, what better place to do it! ), but if we were given just a stunningly useful and short description for each role as above I firmly believe it would greatly increase everyones awareness of what they are building into their tactics and help answer many questions/moans/rant etc here.

Just a simple list of roles and duty combinations. A short, precise description of what it would give you in comparison to other options.

Print that out, stick it next to your PC and I would be a very happy camper!

Even if not officially done, wwfan (or others with true knowledge of how they are implemented into the game - not just your opinion on what a role should be) is this something you would consider doing as a reference card for those of us not as adept at this side of the game?

[llama3]

I agree - that concise comparison was brilliant. I would love to see a piece like that.

[wwfan]

I agree - that concise comparison was brilliant. I would love to see a piece like that.

Even with the typos?

[Mintah]

Even with the typos?

Yes, even with the typos.

[ShirazS]

Agreed as well. Would love an explanation like that for every role so I can better understand which one to select based on what I want the player to do.

[higgins]

SI roles definition is fairly subjective, when we could tweak these roles, through sliders, we had a chance to address this issue.

But now?

A football team is not simply a sum of pre-built roles, I heard many realism claims here, talking about the new tactical system, but I'm still unconvinced.

[RTHerringbone]

SI roles definition is fairly subjective, when we could tweak these roles, through sliders, we had a chance to address this issue.

But now?

A football team is not simply a sum of pre-built roles, I heard many realism claims here, talking about the new tactical system, but I'm still unconvinced.

Similarly, I'm yet to see a convincing pro-Slider argument.

From the videos we've seen, we can tweak the "under the hood" components of player instructions that we could tweak with sliders.

Whilst the increments of change don't appear to be there, I fail to buy the idea that this is less "realistic" than sliders.

I feel like I'm repeating myself (I am), but if your interpretation of a Role differs to SI's interpretation, then just change it!

Ask the player to Push Higher Up, ask him to Mark Tightly, ask him to Play Wider, ask him to Pass Shorter.......

It's essentially the same game mechanics!, just without placebo-esque increments of change on an interface. How is this so hard to imagine?

I'm off to find a brick wall to bang my head against.

[higgins]

Similarly, I'm yet to see a convincing pro-Slider argument.

From the videos we've seen, we can tweak the "under the hood" components of player instructions that we could tweak with sliders.

Whilst the increments of change don't appear to be there, I fail to buy the idea that this is less "realistic" than sliders.

I feel like I'm repeating myself (I am), but if your interpretation of a Role differs to SI's interpretation, then just change it!

Ask the player to Push Higher Up, ask him to Mark Tightly, ask him to Play Wider, ask him to Pass Shorter.......

It's essentially the same game mechanics!, just without placebo-esque increments of change on an interface. How is this so hard to imagine?

I'm off to find a brick wall to bang my head against.

Yep, the same game mechanics, just more limited, not improved.

Regarding the chance I'd have to change players instructions, once again , I'm far from being satisfied: play wider? How much....? Pass shorter? What does it mean?

How could I change players instructions, not randomly, if I don't know the starting settings and if I don't know the effects of my tweak?

I'm yet to hear a convincing explanation about this point.

Let's face it, we're going towards a puzzle kind of game, realism is vanishing.

[RTHerringbone]

Yep, the same game mechanics, just more limited, not improved.

Regarding the chance I'd have to change players instructions, once again , I'm far from being satisfied: play wider? How much....? Pass shorter? What does it mean?

How could I change players instructions, not randomly, if I don't know the starting settings and if I don't know the effects of my tweak?

I'm yet to hear a convincing explanation about this point.

Let's face it, we're going towards a puzzle kind of game, realism is vanishing.

You really are a lost cause, aren't you?

You've played the series for years and yet you build up an insurmountable mountain of negativity before even playing the new game!

I know this will fall on deaf ears, but why not try to use the next 6/7 weeks to try and use the Tactics Creator exclusively on FM13, to make the jump from sliders to no-sliders less painful?

At least then you may be able to at least approach the new system from a more neutral perspective.

Sliders look to be gone - this is a fact.

You can sit about in a swamp of negativity for the next few weeks and then cut off your nose to spite your face and disassociate yourself from a game that has served you well for years, or you can just try to step out of the negative spiral and try and embrace the direction that the game continues to take.

I don't actually know why I respond.

I don't care if you play or like the game or not, but I'm staggered by your steadfast negative attitude when you've not even seen the damn game in action.

[Cleon]

You really are a lost cause, aren't you?

You've played the series for years and yet you build up an insurmountable mountain of negativity before even playing the new game!

I know this will fall on deaf ears, but why not try to use the next 6/7 weeks to try and use the Tactics Creator exclusively on FM13, to make the jump from sliders to no-sliders less painful?

At least then you may be able to at least approach the new system from a more neutral perspective.

Sliders look to be gone - this is a fact.

You can sit about in a swamp of negativity for the next few weeks and then cut off your nose to spite your face and disassociate yourself from a game that has served you well for years, or you can just try to step out of the negative spiral and try and embrace the direction that the game continues to take.

I don't actually know why I respond.

I don't care if you play or like the game or not, but I'm staggered by your steadfast negative attitude when you've not even seen the damn game in action.

From what I've seen so far the roles look more customisable than ever. You have a base role like Treq/Shadow Striker and can add the shouts to make the role exactly what you need it to be. Which lets face it, is great because everyone has their own opinions about what a role is and what it offers, its majorly subjective to begin with.

Just ignore those who are stuck in the past RT, focus on helping those with an open mind and who make opinions based on actually playing the demo and not before. Life is simpler then, only an idiot makes judgement about something and say its a 'fact', 'more limited' blah blah without actually playing the game. They don't know that for 100% and are just jumping to conclusions. Again though this seems to be the same people who say 'I understood the sliders' but when really pushed on it, clearly didn't and fail to accept that.

[higgins]

I know you guys have problems with opinions that diverge from your own, let's say that freedom and independence of thought is not your strong point, just one thing I don't understand, why are you trying to convince me that I'm wrong?

The game only could prove I'm wrong, not you.

[RTHerringbone]

I know you guys have problems with opinions that diverge from your own, let's say that freedom and independence of thought is not your strong point, just one thing I don't understand, why are you trying to convince me that I'm wrong?

The game only could prove I'm wrong, not you.

It's a peculiar form of trolling that you employ, because all of your comments can just be flipped on their head!

Perhaps you struggle to consider opinions that diverge from your own? Fair comment?

It's just people with strong opinions disagreeing, which is what forums are for.

However, I am open-minded enough to use the TC already, and am quite excited about what the new Instructions layer may deliver.

I didn't use sliders anyway, so things can only be better for TC users like me.

At the end of the day, when the game is released, I'll be happy to give it a go and hopefully prolong my enjoyment of the series.

Your reluctance to move on means that maybe your time with the series may be drawing to an end. Your loss.

[llama3]

Even with the typos?

Typos or not, it was a brilliant way of comparing the similar roles to try and get the best out of them.

[wwfan]

Being a bit harsh on higgins here, chaps. It seems to me that the role adjustments shown on the screenshots will give him exactly what he wants. I'm sure he'll be able to create the exact roles he requires.

The limitation a non-slider accessible TC has is the ability to develop custom mentality and CF settings. For the former, that's a great thing, as custom mentality settings had the most chance of a) breaking the ME, b) making the football look horrible and c) hurting the user. How mentality works will be non-debatable as the TC sets it in stone. CF logic has been fully explained in the generalist v specialist discussions, but is perhaps less well dealt with in the game manual.

In terms of width and depth (etc), the user needs to recognise their relative relation to strategy. He can have a deepish attacking strategy, but must accept that a relatively high line is an inherent part of such a strategy. If he wants a lower line, he'll have to be less attacking minded. Trade offs will be absolutely necessary. Personally, I think such trade offs are an inherent part of all management, whether sporting or non-sporting.

[higgins]

Being a bit harsh on higgins here, chaps. It seems to me that the role adjustments shown on the screenshots will give him exactly what he wants. I'm sure he'll be able to create the exact roles he requires.

The limitation a non-slider accessible TC has is the ability to develop custom mentality and CF settings. For the former, that's a great thing, as custom mentality settings had the most chance of a) breaking the ME, b) making the football look horrible and c) hurting the user. How mentality works will be non-debatable as the TC sets it in stone. CF logic has been fully explained in the generalist v specialist discussions, but is perhaps less well dealt with in the game manual.

In terms of width and depth (etc), the user needs to recognise their relative relation to strategy. He can have a deepish attacking strategy, but must accept that a relatively high line is an inherent part of such a strategy. If he wants a lower line, he'll have to be less attacking minded. Trade offs will be absolutely necessary. Personally, I think such trade offs are an inherent part of all management, whether sporting or non-sporting.

Some good points raised here wwfan, I still think trade-offs could be my main problems, the demo will clear things a bit.

[llama3]

I like the fact that you can use shouts within a role now - it appears to me a way of getting the customisation in a role, but without the problems that using sliders gave.

[TOUGHGUY]

Similarly, I'm yet to see a convincing pro-Slider argument.

From the videos we've seen, we can tweak the "under the hood" components of player instructions that we could tweak with sliders.

Whilst the increments of change don't appear to be there, I fail to buy the idea that this is less "realistic" than sliders.

I feel like I'm repeating myself (I am), but if your interpretation of a Role differs to SI's interpretation, then just change it!

Ask the player to Push Higher Up, ask him to Mark Tightly, ask him to Play Wider, ask him to Pass Shorter.......

It's essentially the same game mechanics!, just without placebo-esque increments of change on an interface. How is this so hard to imagine?

I'm off to find a brick wall to bang my head against.

Imagine he has done exactly that. He has moulded his advanced playmaker to his liking using these exact shouts.

Then as a match progresses he notices a slight change would be beneficial. And he would like his modified advanced playmaker to push even higher up.

Now what.

[Cleon]

Imagine he has done exactly that. He has moulded his advanced playmaker to his liking using these exact shouts.

Then as a match progresses he notices a slight change would be beneficial. And he would like his modified advanced playmaker to push even higher up.

Now what.

Your post implies that if sliders were used each notch had a visible difference, when in fact you'd be lucky if you saw the visual effect every 3-5 notches. Something many FM'ers make the mistake in thinking.

[TOUGHGUY]

I'm not implying that every notch had a visible difference, and indeed I am not some major advocate of sliders, I actually welcome the idea of 'wordy' instructions, I'm just very reserved when it comes to their realization as it appears to be implemented in the upcoming title. The point is that – even if we simplify things and assume that the sliders only had three states – the player could switch between those freely whereas right now it seems only a one step change is possible.

[Cleon]

I'm not implying that every notch had a visible difference, and indeed I am not some major advocate of sliders, I actually welcome the idea of 'wordy' instructions, I'm just very reserved when it comes to them. The point is that – even if we simplify things and assume that the sliders only had three states – the player could switch between those freely whereas right now it appears only a one step change is possible.

No matter what system would be used a slight change like you first mentioned wouldn't be noticeable in either way of doing tactics. The sliders only really allowed for quite drastic visible changes.

I do get what you mean though but we'll have to wait and see if we only have 1 option or not. At the minute all people are doing is guessing.

[wwfan]

I'm not implying that every notch had a visible difference, and indeed I am not some major advocate of sliders, I actually welcome the idea of 'wordy' instructions, I'm just very reserved when it comes to their realization as it appears to be implemented in the upcoming title. The point is that – even if we simplify things and assume that the sliders only had three states – the player could switch between those freely whereas right now it seems only a one step change is possible.

Not if you give the player another role.

[TOUGHGUY]

Not if you give the player another role.

Are roles only as different as two slider 'noticeable steps', to keep using that term, in a single instruction? I don't think they are, not all of them surely, so this isn't a solution.

No matter what system would be used a slight change like you first mentioned wouldn't be noticeable in either way of doing tactics. The sliders only really allowed for quite drastic visible changes.

I do get what you mean though but we'll have to wait and see if we only have 1 option or not. At the minute all people are doing is guessing.

What slight change? I only mentioned repeating, or 'doubling' if you will, the effect that the shout would have. So unless you are saying that shouts are not 'noticeable' in the first place then what I originally said is going to be impossible, but would have had an effect on the player's instructions. Again the 'one step only' vs. 'two steps' example illustrates it.

Not having both relative (more/less) as well as absolute (always/never or at least even more/even less) instructions feels somewhat disappointing, or limiting perhaps, particularly now with modifying roles or individual players before a game, when fine tuning a player this way seems to also equal abandoning any possibility of instructing him further.

[RTHerringbone]

Are roles only as different as two slider 'noticeable steps', to keep using that term, in a single instruction? I don't think they are, not all of them surely, so this isn't a solution.

The Role selection point wwfan makes is possibly based on something like this....

Presumably, the changes we will be able to make with Instructions will be dramatic enough to result in a visible change in behaviour - they may be the equivalent of 4/5/6 slider notches in one go.

In your earlier example: "He has moulded his advanced playmaker to his liking using these exact shouts. Then as a match progresses he notices a slight change would be beneficial. And he would like his modified advanced playmaker to push even higher up". it could be argued that by effectively getting him to push up the equivalent of (perhaps) 10 slider notches detaches him from the essence of his original Role.

Therefore, it may be more appropriate to use a different sort of Playmaker Role to get that creativity you seek, but higher up the pitch by default.

This is the point, work with Roles to their limit, and if that still doesn't meet your requirements, then either the TC isn't flexible enough to give you what you want, or what you actually wanted isn't what you started with.

[llama3]

This is the point, work with Roles to their limit, and if that still doesn't meet your requirements, then either the TC isn't flexible enough to give you what you want, or what you actually wanted isn't what you started with.

That is a perfect point, I see people tweaking their playmakers to play with shorter passing and make more runs forward and increase the mentality - when in fact they have "created" an Attacking Midfielder role instead of a playmaker role. Often the right role may not sound like what you want originally, but ends up being perfect. For example I have often used Inside Forwards and Wing Backs, whereas currently I am more of a fan of Full Backs and Wingers, as this behaves and interacts with my team in a manner much closer to what I want than the WB & IF combo did.

[yonko]

Reading the comments on this page, I think that both sides of the argument are speculating here. All I know is that someone from SI (Miles on his video blogs perhaps) better release more details on the tactical side of FM14 if they want to keep me interested in their game. Because based on the limited info so far, I'm not going to buy FM14.......and I'm someone who has played every edition of FM/CM since the mid 90s.

[wwfan]

Reading the comments on this page, I think that both sides of the argument are speculating here. All I know is that someone from SI (Miles on his video blogs perhaps) better release more details on the tactical side of FM14 if they want to keep me interested in their game. Because based on the limited info so far, I'm not going to buy FM14.......and I'm someone who has played every edition of FM/CM since the mid 90s.

I have no time for comments like this. Play the demo and decide for yourself. Don't get overly dramatic about SI not making every little detail of their game explicit prior to release. That's a totally unrealistic expectation and you know it.

[TOUGHGUY]

Yes RTHerringbone and llama3, that can of course a valid point, but at the same time one that still assumes the players actually want to make a much broader change than 'moving a single slider' so to speak. Hence my previous comment about this only being applicable if roles were different in one aspect only – which they are obviously not, well most of them anyway.

I do not think it too far fetched that someone might be fine with the setup of a single role with a particular duty, except one part of it. Just one, not enough to warrant a switch to another role. Which is where the limits of the 'one step' option come to play. Having the role modification on the tactics screen be separate from further on field instructions would help alleviate that but right now it appears they are the same thing.

[Mintah]

Yes RTHerringbone and llama3, that can of course a valid point, but at the same time one that still assumes the players actually want to make a much broader change than 'moving a single slider' so to speak. Hence my previous comment about this only being applicable if roles were different in one aspect only – which they are obviously not, well most of them anyway.

I do not think it too far fetched that someone might be fine with the setup of a single role with a particular duty, except one part of it. Just one, not enough to warrant a switch to another role. Which is where the limits of the 'one step' option come to play. Having the role modification on the tactics screen be separate from further on field instructions would help alleviate that but right now it appears they are the same thing.

I think the key is that, as it is now, the FM ME has enough roles and duties for each position (the only exception that comes to mind is CB) that a "2-step" change in any setting (e.g. A change from never to often or vice versa) is more rationally accomplished by a switch to a new role than a "2-step" change (with the exception of maybe long shots). For example, if you want your anchor man to make through balls often, not only does it compromise the point of using the anchorman role, you're also better off just making him a DLPd. Or, another example, if you want your TQ to close down often, then you might as well just make him DLFa or DLFs. In both of these scenarios, you get a player who will serve more or less the same function, but also does additional things that you want them to do and do not compromise the whole point of their role.

With that said, I think SI should allow us to use the pre-existing roles for more positions. For example, I wish I could play my CB as a liberio (in tandem with an anchor man to allow a technically skilled CB to dictate play from a bit higher up the pitch) or my DM as a box-to-box midfielder (to mimic how Sweisteinger occasionally plays) or by WB as an inside forward (to mimic the WBs in Biesla's Chilean team).

[TOUGHGUY]

I think the key is that, as it is now, the FM ME has enough roles and duties for each position (the only exception that comes to mind is CB) that a "2-step" change in any setting (e.g. A change from never to often or vice versa) is more rationally accomplished by a switch to a new role than a "2-step" change (with the exception of maybe long shots).

Well that's where we will have to disagree, I see plenty of difference between many roles to warrant using the one and not the other. And the long shot instruction is a pretty major point to simply overlook.

[Mintah]

Well that's where we will have to disagree, I see plenty of difference between many roles to warrant using the one and not the other. And the long shot instruction is a pretty major point to simply overlook.

I'm trying to see your POV. Give me a couple of examples where a role/duty has a setting set to "never" or "often" and in which a change from never to often or vice versa does not compromise the purpose of the role and cannot be accomplished by a change in either role or duty.

[TOUGHGUY]

Ah but don't forget it is not just never or often e.g. as with through balls (or, again, long shots), remember we are also talking about creativity or mentality. In fact I would say those are the settings that would benefit the most from an additional 'even more' instruction or something along those lines as discussed earlier, given they appear to be more fluid in that they go beyond the three never-sometimes-often states. Indeed I imagine those settings would be the ones potentially modified the most and within a single role so as to for example keep the instructions of a support duty of a midfielder, but in the advanced position of an attack duty or another role.

This could of course lead to a completely different discussion altogether – that of whether the above is impossible due to the game only being able to handle a somewhat rigid interpretation of football ('these instructions don't break the match engine, nor do these shouts'). Meaning that something like 'advanced playmaker but with much higher mentality' might not seem contrived or broken in terms of common footballing sense, might actually be just that in the game. Which is not a criticism as this is after all a piece of software and a particular interpretation is absolutely necessary, but it does offer a decent enough idea on how to expand these limits to further bring the game closer to actual football and not just in terms of player roles.

[RTHerringbone]

Ah but don't forget it is not just never or often e.g. as with through balls (or, again, long shots), remember we are also talking about creativity or mentality. In fact I would say those are the settings that would benefit the most from an additional 'even more' instruction or something along those lines as discussed earlier, given they appear to be more fluid in that they go beyond the three never-sometimes-often states. Indeed I imagine those settings would be the ones potentially modified the most and within a single role so as to for example keep the instructions of a support duty of a midfielder, but in the advanced position of an attack duty or another role.

Read this post closely regarding CF and Mentality:

The limitation a non-slider accessible TC has is the ability to develop custom mentality and CF settings. For the former, that's a great thing, as custom mentality settings had the most chance of a) breaking the ME, b) making the football look horrible and c) hurting the user. How mentality works will be non-debatable as the TC sets it in stone. CF logic has been fully explained in the generalist v specialist discussions, but is perhaps less well dealt with in the game manual. .

[däkkä]

wwfan obviously forgot to include the fourth, the most common option:

d) everything working perfectly fine, ME unbroken, football looking great, user unharmed

[wwfan]

wwfan obviously forgot to include the fourth, the most common option:d) everything working perfectly fine, ME unbroken, football looking great, user unharmed

Given you described playing against the AI as "fighting a five year old", I trust you are excluding yourself from that group?

[llama3]

haha, dakka got burned

[yonko]

I have no time for comments like this. Play the demo and decide for yourself. Don't get overly dramatic about SI not making every little detail of their game explicit prior to release. That's a totally unrealistic expectation and you know it.

You say you have no time for comments like mine, yet you reply to it.......that's funny :-).

I'll will play the demo only if I see something exciting or intriguing from the tactical side of the game. So far I haven't seen anything of that sort, sorry to say. Others, like yourself, may disagree but that is my opinion and I'm entitled to it just like others are to theirs. On the other hand, I may be getting too old for this game and need to see something more to keep me playing it, trying the demo or even buying it.

Sorry if insults you or anyone else. But this is just how I feel at the moment.

[Cleon]

You say you have no time for comments like mine, yet you reply to it.......that's funny :-).

I'll will play the demo only if I see something exciting or intriguing from the tactical side of the game. So far I haven't seen anything of that sort, sorry to say. Others, like yourself, may disagree but that is my opinion and I'm entitled to it just like others are to theirs. On the other hand, I may be getting too old for this game and need to see something more to keep me playing it, trying the demo or even buying it.

Sorry if insults you or anyone else. But this is just how I feel at the moment.

Apart from the tactic changes the game doesn't have anything that would make me want it either in all honesty. In terms of the new features etc none of them appeal to me, so I understand where you are coming from on the features front and nothing appealing.

[däkkä]

Given you described playing against the AI as "fighting a five year old", I trust you are excluding yourself from that group?

How is that connected really? The AI doesn't have all the same tools in its disposal and at least its use thereof can't rival that of human managers. The AI has limited tactical manouvres, always has and will continue to do so. Even if every AI opponent always played a bog standard 4-4-2, the human having more options doesn't automatically result in a broken ME...

But given that you got all snidy I'm sure you acknowledge (even if not ready to accept) that it's not so black and white as you want to make out and it's possible that everything work perfectly fine and ME be unbroke. I know you gotta drive the hype train but still...

[higgins]

You say you have no time for comments like mine, yet you reply to it.......that's funny :-).

I'll will play the demo only if I see something exciting or intriguing from the tactical side of the game. So far I haven't seen anything of that sort, sorry to say. Others, like yourself, may disagree but that is my opinion and I'm entitled to it just like others are to theirs. On the other hand, I may be getting too old for this game and need to see something more to keep me playing it, trying the demo or even buying it.

Sorry if insults you or anyone else. But this is just how I feel at the moment.

Losing interest in a computer game is not so strange, more or less I am in a similar position.

[yonko]

Apart from the tactic changes the game doesn't have anything that would make me want it either in all honesty. In terms of the new features etc none of them appeal to me, so I understand where you are coming from on the features front and nothing appealing.

I've said it before, the tactical aspect is what has always drawn me to the game since the very early editions back in the 90s. I couldn't care less what else they improve, because the other aspects don't intrigue me, apart from training which I link to the tactics. I wish training was even more linked with the tactical side and I know you feel the same way, because you have expressed so in previous posts. And I wish the guys at SI spend their time in improving training, tactics and the link between the two rather than all other nonsense parts of the game. If we talk realism, that link needs work in the game. If I want my team to play a certain way, then I want the ability to train them to play in said way.

10 years ago it was easy to intrigue me to buy and play the game. Now as I'm older, I'm looking for more perhaps. For the last two editions of FM (FM12 and FM13), I've gotten into and out of the game way too many times. I've gone through spells of short addictiveness and periods where I don't want to even touch the game.

I want SI to show me more than a couple of new player roles (which overlap a little bit with some existing ones and perhaps aren't even realistically created) and some individual shouts like "pass shorter/more direct", "cross more often/less often", etc.

Losing interest in a computer game is not so strange, more or less I am in a similar position.

I'm sure the two of us are not the only ones. Maybe 3 months from now I would feel different and check out the game anyway. It may hook me again, it may not. Maybe between now and the demo, SI will show me something more from the tactical side that will make me try the demo and/or buy the game.

[Mintah]

If we talk realism, that link needs work in the game. If I want my team to play a certain way, then I want the ability to train them to play in said way.

Isn't this exactly what the system in FM13 is? You train your team in the tactics you want to use, with the training taking into account granular aspects of your trained tactics (i.e. If train your team in a tactic that uses a quick tempo, a switch to a new tactic that also uses a quick tempo will still benefit from the tempo training done for the previous tactic), and you train your players in the role you want them to play. The gains from taking the time to set up a rational training system becomes apparent in your team and players' play in the ME very quickly.

[RTHerringbone]

Isn't this exactly what the system in FM13 is? You train your team in the tactics you want to use, with the training taking into account granular aspects of your trained tactics (i.e. If train your team in a tactic that uses a quick tempo, a switch to a new tactic that also uses a quick tempo will still benefit from the tempo training done for the previous tactic), and you train your players in the role you want them to play. The gains from taking the time to set up a rational training system becomes apparent in your team and players' play in the ME very quickly.

Training (and the analysis tab) was all that kept me from FMC on FM13.

I'm feeling that Training is gradually becoming less important for me, even though I love watching great newgens come through, so I think I'll give FMC a real go on FM14.

As much as anything, it should mean I can get further than I usually do date-wise, and I'm intrigued by Match Plans.

[Mark.]

Training (and the analysis tab) was all that kept me from FMC on FM13.

I'm feeling that Training is gradually becoming less important for me, even though I love watching great newgens come through, so I think I'll give FMC a real go on FM14.

As much as anything, it should mean I can get further than I usually do date-wise, and I'm intrigued by Match Plans.

Kinda off topic, but I remember reading some of your tactical threads, I am sure you got well into the 2020s with Barca!!! More than I could ever claim!