Are the tactics any clearer on FM09?

[GerdMuller]

Simply put: The tactics department is WAY to complicated for ME.

[chopper99]

Simply put: The tactics department is WAY to complicated for ME.

I think this is probably true. Unfortunately the problem is compounded by the fact that the standard tactics provided with the game are pretty useless.

I've been trying a few more of the standard tactics over the weekend and they're no good at all for me, I really don't see the point of them being there.

I'm actually starting to get quite stressed with the game now, which is worrying as I'm still on my first 'big club' save before I throw myself into lower league management.

It's not the so called 'bugs' that are apparently present in the game that are annoying me, it's mainly the fact that nothing I do seems to make my strikers play consistantly. I've got some excellent strikers in my Man City team now, but they just constantly play poorly. I'm still having reasonable success so that's not a problem, but this issue with my strikers is really starting to irk me.

I think I'm going to have to go and read the '09 version of Tactical Theories and Frameworks, which makes me sad

[AmA Deo]

I am happy with the tactics in FM09.

I just think it can be very difficult knowing what to do and when (sometimes, when things aren't going very well) to improve the team. I had to read alot of stuff to be more "FM-tactical-clever"...

[CaptainPlanet]

I think I'm going to have to go and read the '09 version of Tactical Theories and Frameworks, which makes me sad

I refuse to result to having to do this...

[Nomis07]

I refuse to result to having to do this...

I gave up and tried this, but tbh it wasn't much help. It is probably brilliant, but I was left confused by the whole thing and the tactic I created was dreadful.

[chopper99]

I am happy with the tactics in FM09.

I just think it can be very difficult knowing what to do and when (sometimes, when things aren't going very well) to improve the team. I had to read alot of stuff to be more "FM-tactical-clever"...

I think this is becoming a big problem with the game now. It seems very difficult for someone with no knowledge of the tactics forum to have success and more importantly fun. This isn't the case for everyone, I'm sure there are plenty of people who've made successful tactics without reading anything in the tactics forum.

The question is, do those people feel like they have a grasp of the tactics, or do they feel like they've 'stumbled' onto a system that works and are scared to alter it in case they break it and can't get it working again?

[midlothian]

The latter, definitely (for me). That's why tweaking with the tactics is no fun for me: I don't know what I'm doing.

[williamshankley]

I'm having a problem wth this too big of a gap between your defence and midfield. It's almost like I can't let my players attack or if I do then the defenders seem to have too high a mentality for what I want them to do which is basically defend. I set my team up like I want and all I see from Sammy bloody Lee is that there's too big a gap. The man's a buffoon.

[eldereth]

FM being too hard seems to be a recurring topic whenever a new version arrives. Most of these 'FM is too hard' posts are almost exact replica's of last year's, and the year before. Besides, there's still at least one patch to come, so everything can still happen.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

I think this is becoming a big problem with the game now. It seems very difficult for someone with no knowledge of the tactics forum to have success and more importantly fun.

Personally I think this has been a problem for quite a few years now, but is becoming bigger and bigger. I would say that since 2005 at least, I've had to sadly rely on the tactics forum to tell me what things actually mean as opposed to what I intuitively think they mean.

FM being too hard seems to be a recurring topic whenever a new version arrives. Most of these 'FM is too hard' posts are almost exact replica's of last year's, and the year before.

And it's also a recurring theme that these posts always get mistaken for wanting the game to be made easier and moaning about not being able to win every game. This is about clarity, not difficulty. We don't want the game to be made easier, just easier to understand.

The game should be complex, but not complicated. There is an important difference.

[chopper99]

And it's also a recurring theme that these posts always get mistaken for wanting the game to be made easier and moaning about not being able to win every game. This is about clarity, not difficulty. We don't want the game to be made easier, just easier to understand.

The game should be complex, but not complicated. There is an important difference.

Spot on

I'm well aware that these arguments arise every year. Last year, despite having no trouble at all with tactics myself, I often said that I felt the tactics were too unclear and unintuative and campained for this to be improved in '09.

All signs pointed to the fact that this would be improved in '09 but for me it's got worse.

Does it not tell people something if these threads get started every year?

[Butters76]

Don't buy the official story, it's a lie.

They did not change it because people did not understand the old system. They changed it so people wouldn't be abe to poke holes in the matchengine.

This is just like CM4 all over again when they added 2D, first they said they removed Wibble/wobble because it was too hard for players. But they slipped later on and admitted that wibble/wobble would let people poke holes in the engine and make super tactics that never lost.

Wibble/wobble = the with ball/without ball "setupmap" Where you could chose where each player would be depending on where the ball was for both when you had the ball and when defending. And you could move him ass much or as little as you wanted, not just in preset positions.

[CaptainPlanet]

The game should be complex, but not complicated. There is an important difference.

Excellent point.

[Jeff the Fish]

What's frustrating for me is -as far as my understanding of the game goes - is that there shouldn't be a few 'set' tactics that make your team successful. Football is not like that. I mean - a basic 4-4-2 should give you 'relative' success. I probably haven't played enough seasons or read enough tactics threads to be entirely qualified on this topic - but to be honest, I don't think you should have to know what the latest downloadable tactic is to play the game and actually do fairly well.

A balance needs to be struck between playing the game, picking a basic 442 and winning everything and having to pick some bizarre formation with a huge variety of sliders set at exactly the right level to ensure success. I am not against detail in any area of the game, but it just seems a bit daft that with 11 good players in a fairly normal formation, your team can play so poorly.

[neilb242]

I completely agree that the standard tactics provided with the game should be more effective. People enjoy this series for more than just tactic making - i personal like to concentrate on building up my squad strength, and morale. My favourite part of the game is still searching for the exact player I need.

To this end, since a nice variety of tactics are provided pre-made in the tactic screen, then using one of these, and checking ass man feedback should be able to help you out a lot more than it does. If you drop a goal behind, swap to the standard 4-4-2 attacking, say, from the 4-4-2 normal, and see if that helps you take the game to the oppostition. Similarly, if your ass man feedback suggests you have a gap between defence and midfield, choosing a pre-made tactic with a def-mid should help out.

Don't take this to mean I think that just simply switching the tactics like this would provide instant success. But it should be more helpful than it currently is. At the moment it feels like the given formations are simply just there to point out 'this is what some teams line up like.'

Many managers in real life aren't tactical geniuses. Take Keegan, he concentrated on man management, squad building and such more than tactics, or so it seemed, and he did have sucess. He isn't the only one either. A player attribute such as Tactical Awareness or Intelligence should have a big say on how players identify with your instructions.

On the tactics forum, you get the people who make tactics that are sucessful, but with some strange shapes or positions rarely seen ifl. Always when this happens someone will moan about how it is unrealistic. But if it works, then surely that makes the tactics side of the game unrealistic?