herne79

If players don't do much during a game they can get low ratings. Perhaps your midfield screen is good, therefore your defenders don't have much to do? That may or may not be happening with you but something to watch out for.

Re-read the OP, he's not complaining about results. The OP is saying in their opinion opposition defenders are outperforming their strikers in terms of anticipation and quickness, plus AI team lines are all green after 4 matches, which I assume relates to the partnership lines, and thus quicker than the OP's own team is able to achieve. That is then mistakenly associated to the AI having some form of advantage, which is easy to do when something looks odd and feels out of place. As far as I can tell this isn't about tactics or uploading a save for others to play with, it's about things being noticed in the ME and possibly the UI which may or may not relate to an ME issue or bug. Others may not notice such things because all saves are different and/or different decisions in game may have unexpected knock on effects. @milenec11 The best thing you can do is raise the issue in the bugs forum, describe the issue as best you can (probably best not to mention non-existent AI advantages though ) and upload your save there.

I think something odd is going on here. At least the 1st and 4th clips appear to be nothing to do with Tempo (or any tactical instruction) - it very much looks like the match speed has been increased and the bottom one (maybe others) have had it slowed. Regardless, the original question has been answered 👍.

Like all other tactical instructions, asking players to do something merely affects their tendency to do it - it does not tell them to do it all the time. Asking them to play at a higher or lower tempo (to carry on the example) isn’t always going to be obvious. Players are not robots: sometimes they can still decide to do something else even if you’ve asked them to do it. Eg., “I’m not going to slow play down here as my striker is free and in space so I’ll play a quick ball to him”. Or “we’re not being pressed high, lets slow the pace down for now and be patient in our build up”. So you could make a case for all 4 of the above to be the same tempo, but it’s only a brief snapshot where players have decided to follow (or not) the instruction. The differences are usually seen over the course of the entire match.

Description of the Carrilero role in the link below - scroll down a little in the opening post to see it. In particular note the part that says “The role will provide support in the wide areas in narrow formations”. 👍 (btw it doesn’t matter if the role is part of the default gegenpress tactic. Those tactics are nothing more than starting points). https://community.sigames.com/forums/topic/412866-fm18-new-roles-explained/

It's "under review". I guess it's worth remembering that SI's philosophy for the game is realism. I have no idea what the global rules (and indeed laws) are for transferring young players between clubs and countries, but I suspect they're an awful lot tighter than we're used to seeing in FM so a tightening up in this area is to be expected if realism is what SI are after. Perhaps this change has gone too far and SI are reviewing it, but unrealistic transfers of young players which we've perhaps become used to I imagine will remain a thing of the past.

I know and unfortunately people who say these things are kind of missing the point. SI tell us the game is based on realism. In real life it isn’t “easy” to manage the top sides (or anyone for that matter) - look at Liverpool this season or Man City have not won the CL 5 times on the trot for example. Yet that and more besides is perfectly possible in FM, even with a non-elite team. This is why if it can be detailed to the devs exactly what people are doing to achieve these things there may be new directions found to go in. If the devs can analyse matches played by looking at the coding (for example) perhaps it could be seen that a tweak or two to how AI managers behave against these top teams might help matters. Or perhaps they may find that a certain tactic being used in combination with certain player attributes and high morale is too “overpowered”. But the devs can’t do anything (to an extent) without knowing the detail of how people are playing and (preferably) the code to analyse - doubly important during a Beta phase.

For everyone who says the game is too easy (or too hard for that matter) it would be much more helpful for both the community and the developers to describe in detail exactly how you are playing various aspects of the game. Especially during the Beta phase. For example - Do you sim/holiday through seasons? What level of detail have you selected for leagues/nations (which affects which match engine is used)? How do you play matches (instant result or watching each match) and to what level of highlights? Detail your tactical system (screenshots). How do you manage your squad? Which club are you playing with and what are your Board’s expected results? What transfers have you made? How do you handle Training? What responsibilities do you delegate? Etc etc… If you are finding the game too easy, ideally start a thread in the Bugs forum, detail all of that and upload your game save to let the devs review it in detail 👍.

If they have the attributes you need, just play a CM in the DM position 👍. Over time they’ll adapt their positional familiarity however the right attributes, a decent tactic, how you manage things and the players around them will more than compensate for any loss of positional familiarity.

For player development it’s never better to play in a friendly vs a competitive match. Players don’t try as hard or put as much effort into friendlies as they do in competitive matches (it’s in the game coding).

Lost in translation I think. See my comment above about why 👍.

Page indeed.

When I googled "waiting gif" this isn't quite what I had in mind.

Can you imagine the outcry if that happened and people found they couldn't beat the AI because their unfair advantage had been taken away? It'd be glorious .

Getting ready for page 16 with a legend.

AI managers are a big reason why we can’t fully customise or have blank roles. AI managers are nowhere near as smart as us humans which means we would have a massive advantage over AI managers when it comes to designing and using custom roles. Sure we have one or two roles where we can do a fair amount of customisation, but having that across the pitch throughout most (all?) positions would be too much for the AI to cope with. There is also a realism issue. FM is based on realism and the roles we see are based (some better than others) on real life roles. So yes, it may be a little daft that one match we say to AI Messi play as a Trequartista while the next match we say play as an Inside Forward, but the role itself is based on something you could say Messi did perhaps play as, at least from time to time. This means it isn’t exactly realistic to think up and design our own roles if the whole premis of the game is based on realism. Personally I’d love to see more customisation but first and foremost I’d like a challenging game but as things stand that wouldn’t be possible if we had more (or full) customisation.

Whilst it is true that competition can indeed drive innovation, it is equally true (and largely ignored) that innovation can also come from within. Stand still long enough in a market that you effectively rule and you’ll ultimately lose because people will become disenchanted, stop buying and someone else will come in to pick up the pieces. It’s also pretty disingenuous to the very passionate and hard working people at SI towers who work their socks off every year to produce the best game they can. Whittling that down to a mere “add a couple of features and ship it” or “it doesn’t need to do anything” is pretty low. It’s also of note that while there may not be direct competition for FM from other (decent) football management games, there is competition - competition from other games. FM may be the only viable football management game on the market but there are plenty of other excellent games out there all vying for our hard earned (and limited) cash. If FM really did fall behind the curve people would stop buying it and go elsewhere for their enjoyment. FM still needs that visible shelf space amongst all the rest. Don’t get me wrong - I agree some aspects appear to have gone downhill and there are plenty of issues with the game that have been around for years that haven’t been “fixed”. I didn’t even buy FM22 because I didn’t see it as much of an upgrade from 21. But just because we don’t understand SI’s priorities and decisions (which we have no entitlement to know btw) doesn’t make Reddit and this “lack of competition” theory right. Competition can drive innovation but innovation is never solely driven by competition - at least not if you care about your product, which SI very clearly do.

Other styles of play have always been every bit as much OP and viable as gegenpress, they’re just not as easy or straightforward to set up and maintain. Perhaps SI can make some moves to help with setting up other styles, which has always been a problem with the tactic creator. Head over to the tactics forum and read some of the excellent guides there if you would like to find out more about other styles of play and how “OP” they can be.

Yes and no . As with everything else in the game, looking at it in isolation won’t give you a fair picture. In isolation you can say yes, it does matter, because it is a match engine modifier. However looking at the whole picture a lack of tactical familiarity is not going to break a decent tactic with well rounded players in good spirits because other aspects of your system can make up for any such a lack. Having all cogs in the system running smoothly is the ideal scenario, but one little cog not functioning at 100% probably won’t have much (if any) impact - especially if that one little cog is just a small adjustment to a TI or two during a match. Changing the entire system during a match on the other hand is rarely a good idea, but that would affect more than just tactical familiarity anyway: you’d be introducing untried and untested player roles, TIs, mentality etc as well. btw this is why every now and again we see some youtuber saying silly things like “doing this has no impact” or “x attribute is meaningless” (not rashidi btw lol). They look at things in isolation without understanding the whole picture is the important part.

Really? You can get “for free” a completely updated database covering all transfers across all world leagues available in the game with updated player attributes & stats, youngsters who have made their break through, retired players along with league and club histories + personnel updated? Sounds like the researchers are out of a job. I agree there is a lot of potential in the game but lets not understate what happens with a database update and the work the researchers do 👍.

It can be yes. The more players there are, the more workload that puts onto coaches and thus the less time individual players can get with coaching staff. It can also limit match time that players get. I’d suggest 37 in the U19s is too many for those reasons. Whilst Training for players aged under 18 takes precedence for player development, match time remains relevant. For players aged 18 and over, match time becomes more relevant (although training remains important).

A moving gif you say?

I’ve been playing as “Red Bull London” for a while now, making use of the Create a Club feature. I use Leyton Orient as the base club. During the Create a Club set up you can not only choose affiliated clubs (I choose all the Red Bull clubs) but also the type of affiliation. There’s lots of choices in there, including sharing scouting knowledge, having the same Board, Marketing, loaning players, first option to buy players and so on. You can also design the kit and club badge. Not perfect but saves a lot of faffing about with multiple managers.

Possibly although I still don’t know what your players are like and If they’re suited to the roles. Generally speaking I wouldn’t use so many attack duty players in the front 4 as you may restrict space a bit in the final third and players may not track back too well but you may find it works ok for your squad.

Don't know without looking at the players although with a team predicted to finish near the bottom I probably wouldn't use that tactic (see below). I'd also manage my expectations - if predicted 19th I'd be happy avoiding relegation. Anything higher would be a bonus. In terms of the system you've pictured I'd say it has more to do with formation and quality of players than anything else. You're using what seems to be a gegenpress style which tends to suit a more top heavy formation rather than such a deep formation as you have used. That's because with gegenpress you usually need to press opponents high and early which tends to favour formations where your players are positioned higher up the pitch such as in a 4231. I'd also consider the quality of players at your disposal: if they are only good enough to finish a predicted 19th are they really good enough to cope with such a high intensity system week in week out? Again, Morale will play some part here. You start losing, players lose Morale and it becomes a vicious circle that can be difficult to break. It's times like that we perhaps need to be more flexible in tactical, personnel and management choices - carrying on regardless and hoping something will change is usually a recipe for disaster.