(sic)

I do realize that. But the question is, for how long are they going to do it? Until people gradually stop using those old systems? Why should people change their laptops anyways, when they don't have to fear about system requirements going up? We might go into 2030 with same system requirements, graphics not looking much better, and the engine/ME holding the game back. It's 2022, and it's about time SI had made some radical changes, and revamping certain things like graphics, the engine, etc. We can't go on like this forever.

But if you were to cater to those people forever, the game wouldn't really progress anywhere. As we are seeing currently in some ways. At what point do you say, okay, we have to raise the minimum requirements in order to improve the game? As harsh as it may sound, I have no sympathy for those players. They need to upgrade their systems at some point if they want to continue playing. The game is releasing on PS5, for gods sake. Other games keep constantly improving, and constantly raising the requirements, yet all of us FM players should be held back, because we need to cater to people who use 10 year old laptops. Nobody cared about me not being able to run new games back in 2014 and 2015, so I bought a new PC in order to play those games. It's really simple.

I'd argue that even that isn't true. Minimum requirements are as follows: CPU = Intel Core 2 or AMD Athlon 64 X2 - First one launched in 2008, discontinued in 2012, while the second was launched in 2005, discontinued in 2009. GPU = Intel GMA X4500, NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT, AMD/ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650 - All 3 being released in 2008. If that doesn't scream outdated then I don't know what else will. But let's get to the other point, the "entry level laptops". I'd say anything under £400 is an entry level laptop, so let's look at one. Doing a quick search, this is what I've stumbled upon. First off, the CPU has 8 cores. The problem is, FM just wouldn't utilize all of those cores, because it's outdated, and unoptimized to do so. Still, you should have a CPU that's way faster than something that came out, *checks notes* 14 years ago? The GPU is around 620% faster than Radeon HD 3650, according to the benchmarks. It also has 8GB of RAM, and an SSD. So the excuse of aiming for entry level laptops is also bs. Maybe it was a good excuse 5 years ago, but in 2022 it's not.

Yep, it definitely seemed easy to overachieve. Building a good tactic isn't an issue for me. Though I have relied more on tactical replications, which mostly weren't possible to 100% pull off in game, due to limitations to ME and tactical creator (roles, instructions, etc.). So I only ignored those features, but don't get me wrong, I don't dislike them. In fact, I hope more of the older stuff gets changed up and modernized, like what they seem to be doing currently. The fact that I always played with counterpress on, in a mid or high block, doesn't help either. But that's the sort of football I want to play, even though I won't always tell everyone to press like a maniac. At least that's how I want to defend. In attack, I used all sorts of styles, whether it's possession, counter-attacking, or more direct football, slow tempo or high tempo. Those details varied quite a bit. Whether it's gonna be any harder to overachieve in FM23, remains to be seen.

I don't think you are in a minority. Everyone plays the game differently. Just out of curiosity, how many hours have you put into FM22? You sound like someone that pays attention to detail, and likes to stick to one club/save for a longer period of time. I'm usually the opposite of that (seeing that I have managed 10-20 different clubs in FM22, usually for a few seasons only. I think my longest save was Tranmere, where I went on to play 6-7 seasons). Sometimes, I just want to speed through a season, just making a tactic, signing players, and then trying to win as many games as possible. So in that case, I might not pay attention to every single part/feature of the game. Often I'd find a lot of these features irrelevant, as they don't necessarily help me win. If I make a good tactic, and if I have a team with players good enough to carry out those instructions, I'm already 90% there. The game relies on player's attributes (including hidden attributes), after all. So attributes in combination with tactics (instructions, and roles/duties) has the most impact in how well my team will perform in a match. At least that's how I see it, and it has worked well for me so far. Club vision doesn't help me, for example. I'm making my own tactical style, regardless of what the board wants me to play. I always try my best to get the team to finish as highest as possible, so I don't care about their goals. Mostly, I overachieve anyways, so they're happy with how I'm doing. I find staff-advice useless, as it usually changes my tactical style and philosophy, which I like to stick to. I can absolutely see squad planner helping me, and being a big part of my gameplay moving forward. I'll have a much easier time of tracking down positions I need to strengthen. Same with recruitment revamp, it's gonna help me find exactly the type of players I need in my tactic.

That seems to be the thing currently. Though if they introduced all of those features in FM24, we would easily find 4 other things that are missing, and we would complain about them . For me, it's Tactical Creator (including set piece creator) and ME improvements (which should go without saying) in front of everything else. Just like what they've done with Out Of Possession instructions and defense this year, they need to revamp other areas, especially the In Possession instructions, as well as Player Instructions and Player Roles.

Sadly, that is the case. It's a large portion of the playerbase, and they seem to be unwilling to upset them by increasing the system requirements. But they will have to do it at some point, imo it should've been done already.

You said "could you imagine FM without". I could. I know these things exist, but I don't actively use, or pay attention to them. I'm not saying those are bad features, or that they aren't improvements, though they're hardly "headline" worth it in my opinion, as they don't generally improve the experience for every player. Quick chats are just annoying to deal with, players getting pissed off for no reason, etc. Once they do fix them, and add more variety to them, I'd gladly use that feature. I have no use for deadline day, as I like to conclude my transfers long before that. It is useful, and it certainly is an improvement over what already existed. Now, I can actually see myself using some of these new FM23 features, especially the squad planner. It's a great QoL feature, even though realistically, it's something that already kind of existed, just repackaged and done better. The thing is, it is true that they should mostly focus on revamping the already existing stuff, improving the ME, and hopefully revamping/improving other parts of the tactical creator. The reason people are getting pissed off, is because some features/revamps have been asked for years and years. They've been ignored. The graphics have gone from decent in FM17 to absolutely horrible after that. It's 2022, the game looks like it did 10+ years ago. SI seem to take the easy route, so rather than having larger revamps like a new set piece creator, new and better graphics, int. management, etc., they just focus on smaller stuff like "new fan experience".

Sadly, I don't think we can do much. Sure a few of us can "boycott" the game and not buy it. But in the end it achieves nothing. The casual player base is a huge majority, and they will happily buy a new game each year, regardless of anything. After all, that's their core audience. I'm not saying they don't care about the rest of us at all, but we're minority, and we won't really affect their profits much. I don't even use half of those, so that answers your question. Club Vision is irrelevant to me, Board Confidence is mostly irrelevant as well. Interaction and quick chats are annoying, so I avoid using them. Pre-match staff advice is mostly useless to me, so again, I don't use it. Deadline day, I've used it 2-3 times over 1000 hours I've put into FM22. Data Hub, useful, though I don't rely on it. When it comes to women's football. I couldn't care less. I'm not against them adding it, do whatever you want. It's probably a good thing. But personally, I don't know a single person who follows or watches women's football. There are so many football games going on, so many leagues to follow, that I can't see myself following women's football on top of that as well. Especially considering it's "inferior" in quality compared to men's game. It is raising in popularity, but I feel like it's still not on the level of other women's sports. Not in raw numbers, but in other ways. For example, athletics, volleyball, tennis, etc. Those are all popular sports, among both men and women, both in terms of the audience, and in terms of athletes competing. If you asked me how many people I know that watched women's athletics, volleyball, tennis, etc. I think all of them would say they do watch it. Sports like Football, Basketball, etc. (football more so) are simply male dominated, for whatever reasons that I wont go into. So I just doubt the introduction of women's football in FM will have a massive impact, both in terms of new players coming to the game, as well as existing players playing it over men's version.

As opposed to them buying everyone, stocking up on wonderkids and talents, while not playing them at all, and using an aging squad? As opposed to them buying yet another striker, when they already have 7 of them? Yes please.

Reading more about the ME changes, and out of possession instructions, and it definitely looks like a step in the right direction. We have also made improvements to a few player roles and how they position on the pitch - for example, the Winger role is now better at consistently offering width in attack. In midfield, tweaks for advanced roles, namely Mezzala, Advanced Playmaker and Central Midfielders on Attack duty, will position them higher in the half-spaces during build-up play in certain formations, such as 4-3-3. - Wingers actually holding width is huge. Also players being positioned higher in the half-spaces during build-up is huge. I did want to see WBs in the Wingback positions adjusted, seeing they don't really push forward as much early on. They need to be more aggressive if they're in a higher starting position. Elsewhere, we have revamped the Offside Trap option based on research of current systems and how much the offside rule has evolved. Instead, there will be two new instructions at your disposal, giving you the option to tell your defenders to Drop Off or Hold the Line. All defensive lines will drop off or step up at times, but this instruction will affect those close-call situations – do you want your team to aggressively hold their shape, or are you content for them to give up the space in front to defend the space in behind? - Again, a great change. It encourages you to change up your tactics based on the opposition you're facing. For example, you'd usually want to Drop Off when facing a really pacy striker (that has good Acceleration and Off The Ball), instead of Holding the Line. On the other hand, you might want to hold the line against strikers that are more involved in the buildup, as you don't want to give them much space in front of the defense. Outside of your own defensive third, you now have instructions to tell your team to set up a pressing trap out wide or in central areas, affecting the way your team positions and presses when defending – this can be used as an attempt to funnel the opposition into the area of your choice. - Previously, we had to tinker around with OIs to achieve something that would work like this. I'm confident this solution is much much better. Obviously I am still disappointed that they didn't expand on this more, because other areas of tactical creator needed changes as well. But nonetheless, those are some positive changes.

Good for you, it's 50 euros for me. Besides, you're missing the point. There is so much more that could be done. Yet the game looks like it did 10-20 years ago in a lot of areas.

My guess is they're talking about Youtube's compression. When uploading a video in 1080p, Youtube compresses it a lot, and the video loses quality. If the video is edited and uploaded in 4K, it looks way better, and 1080p resolution looks much better in turn. 1080p video bitrate is 8 Mbps, while 4k video bitrate is around 35-34Mbps. Higher bitrate = better quality.

Let me say I do agree with your points, and I've also expressed mixed feelings. There are some good features, and QoL improvements. We don't need 'groundbreaking' features each year. But there are a lot of things that could be improved. Tactical creator, ME, Match Graphics, game engine, int. management, UI/UX. Those are just some of the things that need revamps/large improvements, that I could think of off the top of my head. Tactical creator and ME just lack a lot of things, I could go make a whole post about this, though many have contributed with suggestions. Many things from real life tactics, and player movements, positioning, etc. are simply not doable, or hardcoded so that we cannot influence it much. Match Graphics look worse than they did in 2017 (when they peaked), there's no excuse for going backwards. Besides, they've looked almost the same ever since 3D was introduced. We've seen some progress until 2018, when it went backwards. Customers don't need to buy a new PC every year, I don't know where that comes from. Why should they cater to people with 10+ year old laptops? Well, the answer why, is probably money. Are you using a phone that's 10+ years old? The harsh truth is, players need to get with the times. I'm sure many would buy new laptops anyways, if FM increased the requirements. There needs to be an update on that part, hell, the game engine doesn't even take full advantage of the modern CPUs that have more than 2 cores. Again, there needs to be a revamp, if they want to improve the ME, the graphics, the required specs need to go up. Instead, they've been the same for years. We're not asking for them to improve graphics and increase requirements each year, but a one off revamp that improves the visuals, and in turn raises the requirements, needs to happen soon... It should have happened already, we're in 2022. How long do they plan on doing this, 2030? Should people be able to play on 20 year old laptops at that point? They need to take a hit in order to improve the game in the long term, that's the reality. The UI/UX seems to be improving in the last couple of years, even FM23 looks a tiny bit better than FM22 from what I've seen so far. But it's still at its core the same thing we've had for decades at this point. Again, a larger revamp needs to happen, rather than tiny bits and improvements each year. It's the same with Tactical Creator, we have some great features coming up on the defensive/out of possession side, but they've stopped there. They should've just completely revamped, or massively improved the other areas as well (in possession especially, and in transition). Instead we might get something in the coming years that addresses the other parts. But maybe I'm asking too much. I just feel that charging the full price for small, incremental improvements, is a bit much. It's 50 euros each year for me, and sure, I do get value from it. But not because of the new features, but because the core game of Football Manager is entertaining. I have mixed feelings about this as well. The SI have found the market, players who would be willing to spend 50e on a game each year, regardless of what new features it had. A lot of players would just pay 50e for a database update probably. A serious competitor would be amazing for everyone, and I wish some big studio would make their own football management game. It would just show how you could do things differently, in a more modern way. FM itself is at its core a game that's 20+ years old at this point.

I have so many mixed feelings. First off, there are some potentially great and promising features. Squad building, scouting, Out of Possession instructions, Animations. Now I'm not 100% sure how they will be implemented, and how they're going to work, but I'm at least optimistic about those things. I can't say I'm too bothered with licensing stuff. They did acknowledge that the club fans aren't a big part of the game, so I'm glad they're at least somewhat a part of the game now. They acknowledged the issue of overcrowding the inbox, yet I haven't seen or heard anything in regards to fixing it. When we came to the ME stuff, which I honestly care the most about (together with tactical stuff), again, a bunch of mixed feelings. In one of the first clips, they've shown players sitting on top of each other, getting in each others' way. Players not reacting to runs into space by the opposition, and in general a bunch of stuff that we've had to deal with for years now. At 21:05, the red No. 4 is just standing there, while the opposition player makes a run beyond him. Like surely he can't be so blind not to notice. He doesn't cover the space, he doesn't run behind to cover in time. He only does, once the opposing player has passed the ball. And sure, I'm not saying it cannot happen, but I've seen it happen so many times in FM22, with all kinds of players, with different roles, so it's not a matter of tactics and players used, but a matter of how the ME works. On the other hand, it looked more fluid in a lot of situations, probably due to new animations. There have been obvious improvements to pressing, defensive lines, pressing triggers, traps. Low Block, Mid Block, High Block/Press, Pressing Trap with inside and outside, Cross Engagement, Defensive Line...those are obviously good changes, if they work as they should. But why stop there? There should've been more instructions for other phases of play. Offensive and defensive formations wont ever be a thing in FM apparently, but can we come a bit closer to that at least? The roles we give to players often feel rigid in the way they move about the pitch. We can't specifically tell the players which spaces to occupy at which phases of play. Playing Mentality is still a thing sadly. There have been so many missed opportunities to really improve the tactical creator, in all areas. Instead, it's only improved in one area, while other areas will have to wait a year, two, or a few years to get updated. It feels like it's done deliberately, so they can introduce those things next year as new features to market and sell the game around. I'm still going to wait on giving the final verdict, because I haven't actually played the game, and there could be some new features in the tactical creator (copium). Though from my experience, it's very unlikely there's going to be much more. What we see now is usually what we get.

It's not a superficial issue. It completely breaks immersion, even though it doesn't influence the outcome of a match. It also adds to the fact that there's little difference between watching non-league footballers and top level footballers in FM.

It depends on the features, but the truth is, sadly, I probably will buy it. As much as I'm against doing it, I'll end up buying the game solely for the database and game start date update. Many people have pointed out certain issues with the game, and the general opinion on the forums is divided. The forums usually represent the more "hardcore" community, meaning they care more about the game than the casual playerbase (who are the majority that will just buy a new game each year anyways). So me not buying the game to prove a point or something isn't gonna do anything really. For me, the game is still stuck in the 2000s. From the graphics, to the engine, to the UI. Everything just screams outdated. They will keep adding more and more stuff and bloat into the game, and to the engine that's just old at this point. But it's still gonna feel like the exact same game each year. I sincerely hope they have people working on modernizing the game, especially the engine, the graphics, and the UI/UX. I mean, just look at F1 Manager. That's what a modern manager game should look like, from the UI to the graphics. Yes it will take a few years and a lot of work and money, but it has to be done at some point. It's already 5 years too late. You can't keep releasing the same thing for 20 years. I really hope it's not going to get to that point that in 2030 we have the exact same UI, graphics, AI, and most importantly ENGINE (ME included).

Don't worry about them, their comments usually don't make any sense (at one point I thought it was a bot spamming forums). I've often found that Stay Narrow or Stay Wider PIs have very little impact on players positioning (sadly). You can obviously notice it, but in real life you often see wide players hugging the line or coming inside acting as AMs in FM would (occupying the half-space). You can somewhat get around it, using Roam From Position, leaving them space to move into in the middle, even using playmaking roles. What also helps is having a WB on Attack duty, pushing forward much earlier, so the advanced wide player moves more central earlier on, but it's never gonna work 100% how it should.

Yep, definitely the PPMs would help a lot to define certain roles. I wouldn't even worry that much about some of the in-game roles, as pretty much any of them could work (though with this role, they would have to be on support and in CM or AM spots), with the right PIs and Player Traits.

I wouldn't agree with some of these roles, but it's a great start. I think that Anchor and Aggressor in the CB position, for example, can both be CD-D, but their playstyle would change based on their attributes. Anchor would be someone with great positioning, anticipation, marking, tackling, etc. but without great passing - possibly CD on Cover duty. In general less risky passes, less dribbling. While the Aggressor, as the name suggest, would have higher aggression and maybe close down more often than the Anchor, could maybe put him on a stopper duty, and in general he would be good on the ball (first touch, dribbling, technique), but not necessarily a great passer. Also it is mentioned that it includes a lot of outside CBs, so a WCB-S would be a great role for it as well. Brings the ball out of defense seems like a perfect trait for that role as well. Similarly in the midfield, a Builder screams DLP-D to me, but with the right player traits and instructions, it could as well be a default DM-D. HB-D, or A-D. "Serves as the main circulation hub in the build-up" is the key part to me, and it is why I would go for a DLP-D. A Distributor on the other hand, could really be any role, with More Risky and/or More Direct Passes, together with Likes To Switch Ball To Other Flank , though it does say it is active in the opponents half more, so a DLP-S, CM-S, etc. would work really well. A player would need to be great on the ball, with great passing. An Orchestrator in Advanced Midfielders could be any role honestly (AP, AM, CM). What I get from it is that it actually wouldn't have Risky passes turned on, and would instead prefer to play it short. It's not a player that would usually play through balls and risky passes. Again the attributes and player traits would influence this more to be in the line with their description. Creator on the other hand could be the same, RPM, TQ, etc. but instead it would be a player who would be more aggressive in possession, taking more risks. In Wide Attackers area, an Unlocker could really be anyone on Support Duty. I wouldn't play him as an IF though, as an IF is more focused on making forward runs. PIs, Player Traits, Attributes all would affect this, but here I would have a player who would Cross More Often, Play More Risky/Direct passes, Roam From Position, etc.

I agree, and I've said it previously, the ME is simply way too rigid. If you want to replicate this, you have to create a completely new role and code the way it behaves. And that would be fine, if they actually were up to date on what's happening in the world of football tactics. This has been a thing for years now, and it's still not possible to recreate in FM. Same with WCB that we only got in FM22, it was a thing for a few years before. The way it should work is (just an idea): Give the us the ability to dictate what spaces a player will occupy in certain phases of play. Make "Stay Wider" and "Sit Narrower" actually more noticeable, or redesign it and have it impact players' positioning more. If I want a midfielder to drop to help buildup, I should be able to do so (without training player traits). If I want a fullback to help in the buildup by forming a back 3, then he should move narrower, and act as a 3rd CB, while the CB on the opposite side moves wider. Players should be more aware of the space, and drop/move into that space if necessary. Instead, we have empty spaces that players don't occupy really, we have players sitting on top of each other for no reason, etc. Sadly I have no hope this, or anything like this will happen any time soon.

Yeah, but what's the point of making that back 3 shape then? It's used to help progress the ball up the pitch. If it's not used for that, then what's the point of having players create that back 3 shape later on, when the ball is already in the middle or final third? It just doesn't work in FM.

Yeah, this is the main issue I'm having with FM right now. People have tried making that back 3 shape from a 4 man defence, but it just doesn't work. My No.6 is a FB-D who is told to Stay Narrow...doesn't look narrow to me at all. No.27 is my LCB who is told to stay wider...doesn't look like he's staying wider at all... It just looks like players are ignoring these instructions, or that the instructions simply don't impact the players behavior nearly as much as they should. The rest does work somewhat as it should, No.21 is my IW-S who is told to stay wider...he does do that initially, but later on he'll move narrow. No.7 is my IF-A, the idea is that he should occupy the halfspace, and again, he does that mostly, although I would like him more narrow.

That's the thing, it isn't nowhere as complex, and it can't be. First due to technological limitations, and second, it's a game. And like you said, even with the current tech, we are limited. There might be a few reasons for this. I think the main reason is that they want the game to be available for everyone, meaning PCs/Laptops that are 10-15+ years old. Second reason is money. I don't think they could get near that level of customization with the current ME, and developing a new one will take a lot of effort, time and money. And it wouldn't be worth it in the end, because the requirements for the game would go up, meaning old computers wouldn't be able to run the game. The current ME seems very rigid, and you can clearly see the "if x happens, do y". To me it seems like it takes a lot of effort to develop new roles, because then you have to program a lot of stuff from the scratch. You have to set what the AI will do and how they will react to certain movements. Giving that sort of freedom to a player seems impossible right now. With your example, that stuff already happens under the hood...at least somewhat. Players that don't necessarily occupy certain areas will, to an extent, look to make runs into space, or cover empty spaces, depending on the roles, duties, instructions, etc. But often that's nowhere near enough to what you want them to do. They AI needs to be smarter, meaning doing all of these things, but better (being more aware of the space, better decisions on when and where to run, etc.). Even giving some ability for the players to dictate those movements would be possible. Allowing to dictate how a role/player performs in certain phases of the play (the overall addition of In Possession, Out of Possession and In Transition was great, but I don't know why SI haven't expanded upon it more), meaning the buildup, mid third, final third, as well as in defensive transition and in offensive transition. Right now, you have "When team has the ball", "When player has the ball", "When opposition has the ball". Those should be expanded more, converting certain player traits to instructions, and overall revamping the whole PI screen just like they did with TIs. Example: You have a double pivot. You'd want one player to act as a playmaker, dropping deeper to pick up the ball, while the other player will push forward. Now that's easily doable in the game right now. But, if you want to fine tune it a bit, it's where it becomes hard/impossible. I might want the player dropping deep, to drop right in the middle and occupy that space while our team has the ball. The player pushing forward should also push forward and occupy the central areas as a No.10 would. But instead you end up with something lopsided, where none of them really occupy the centre, but instead the side of the field they were positioned originally. Another example would be the Inside forward/Inverted winger. What if I wanted them to defend wide, like in a 4-4-2, but then in possession they should be narrow and act as two No.10s (A lot of managers that use 4-2-4/4-4-2 do this). They will simply be too wide, until they get to the final third. Yes, you can make something similar to this in game, but it's never going to be exactly the same thing. The hidden instructions (aka the hardcoded behaviors) absolutely do exist, but I'm not sure if we can 100% be sure of what they are. Those unofficial sources are probably true in most cases I'd say.

I guess, realism and more options for customization. The thing is, there's constant evolution in football. When WCB became "popular" in real life, it took 2-3 years for the role to get implemented in FM. We could've created that sort of role ourselves if we had the ability to actually tell players what to do, where to go, when to move, etc. But the thing is, especially due to the way the match engine is built, you can't have that in game. The AI wouldn't know how to react. There are already around 40 different roles in the game. A lot of them have certain hard-coded behaviors specific to them. In a lot of cases, I can't really go and tell each player on the pitch exactly what to do, and expect them to do it. They are simply hardcoded to behave a certain way, and there's sometimes little variation to it. Instead I often have to compromise, do I want them to do this one thing, or do I want them to do the other thing. In a lot of cases, I can't have the players do both. Rather than having freedom to tell your players how you want them to behave in different phases of play, you instead have presets (aka roles). I might like how one role performs in defense, or in buildup, but dislike how they play in the attack/final third, and vice-versa. One example could be Wingbacks. In real life in back 3 / 5 systems, they are often acting as wingers who will stay wide to provide width, while also pushing forward earlier, in some cases being in line with strikers. In FM I can somewhat do this, but not by using a player in WB position. Instead I have to use them in ML/MR spots, but then defensively they don't behave as Wingbacks would. Another example could be the Winger role. While I do like how they hold the width early on, in the final phases of attack, you'd often find them quite narrow. I might not necessarily want that, but I have no choice, as pretty much all roles in AML/AMR spots are hardcoded to come narrow in the final third. In this case a Wingback would provide the width I need, without coming narrow in the final third. But again, the issue is other phases of play where they wouldn't push as high as early as the Winger would. This can somewhat be influenced by player traits, but not to an extent I'd like to see. Also a lot of player traits should really become player instructions, but that's another topic. I do understand the concerns that there's less structure and that the AI (or even other players) wouldn't be able to cope against players, but that's also solvable and it sounds like an excuse. We've had this ME for how long now? I think it's time to move on and make something new and better, but that would require too much time and money, that I feel like SI would rather spend elsewhere. I also understand this wouldn't work for a lot of players, who simply prefer to load up a tactic, or create something simple themselves by using the preset roles. Or to players who would rather focus on transfers, squad building, and winning stuff, rather than building tactics. But even that is solvable, give players the ability to choose between the simple or the advanced tactical creator. They can still have preset roles that give a general idea of how a player might play.