Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by vukigepard

  1. The real question isn't if the game is too hard or too easy, the question is can you do what you intend to do and want to and will the effort to do exactly that result in accomplishing that (it's not only about will you win, but how will you win). 

    For me, answer to that question is no, and when it comes to that, i find this version inferior to previous versions, a quick fix could be to be able to customise some features (you think penalties are getting missed too much, add a option that improves the penalty scoring rates, if a player wants that and thinks that is right and scores are unrealistic, why should anyone care? It's the same about game being easy, you could ramp up the injuries, the bad run effects, the complemency, but no. 

    The game has enormous potential, game besides me is excellent, and it's a shame that we need to argue about these things when it's easy to fix that and the game to be to everyone's liking

  2. 23 hours ago, Overmars said:

    Yes, this is essentially a wide diamond 4-4-2 and it does work well in the current match engine. Similarly, if you move one of those forwards back to AMC in a wide 4-3-2-1 then that also produces a lot more goal variety than in other formations. And then the biggest advantage of using wingers and inverted wingbacks is that your crosses are delivered by players who have better crossing attributes than what you can typically find in a wingback. In more conventional modern formations with inside forwards and wingbacks, you often end up with wingbacks crossing 10+ times a match and connecting on maybe 1-2 of them that are usually wasted with headers over the bar.

    I agree, also, if you train your wingers as wbl/wbr and you set them up as complete wingbacks they will do wonders, score and assist really a lot

  3. 5 hours ago, djpdavey said:

    Only once recently has this not happened. I'm playing FM19. The player misses a penalty in the first 20 minutes, we go 1-0 down on 30 mins then the penalty misser pops up with as headed equaliser 5 mins from end. IRL the player which conceeds a pen/misses a pen/scores and own goal goes looking for redemption at the other end and almost does it.

    Yeah, and it should depend on the player personality if it destroys his confidence or makes him more fired up for redemption. Surely there should be visible difference between let's say a balanced player when he misses a penalty, and a driven model citizen how he reacts to a missed penalty. Only thing that i can see is a destroyed confidence no matter who it is and ergo, uselessness for the rest of the game

  4. 5 hours ago, KingCanary said:

    I think I've just hit tipping point on this game and I'm done for now.

    In my 6th season- first 4 were enjoyable, took my Norwich team to 9th, then 4th, 4th and 2nd. Enjoyable variety of matches, different tactical styles etc etc. However in the 5th season I seemed to hit a point where my team are now considered a big team so now every game is the same- dominate statistically, slog away, maybe break the deadlock with a set piece goal or a 25 yard screamer which opens things up a bit, or not which means a frustrating 0-0 draw or loss to a team that managed 2 shots on target all game. I'm three games into the new season and it is taking hold again- my opponents have managed 9 shots on target and scored 5 goals, I've managed 45 shots on target and also scored 5 goals. I've tried varying tactics, I've tried managing in game, tweaking but it is just an absolute chore at this point- the games I win are more frustrating the fulfilling and the games I lose are smash your laptop level annoying usually. 

    My enjoyment has died because I no longer feel immersed. I don't feel like I'm a manager, setting my team up to beat another team- I feel like a video game player trying to find a way to beat the same AI week in week out and it just isn't fun.

    Yeah, i agree something should change in regards to that, when oppositon sets up deep and pass between their back line like barcelona in it's finest Pep days without any composure, concentration and other attributes whatsoever, too little emphasis is put onto individual attributes. But to minimise that happening, (still will happen regardless of what you do, that's why is ME far from perfect) you should add team instruction run at defence, pass into space (even if it seems contradictory), press as much as you can, get aggresive players, change entire starting eleven to surprise the ai, develop a highest possible goalscoring tactic (test it against the same team by reloading and giving it 10 tries to see the average goals scored against the bus, for me it's personally 4-3-1-2 (Two bpd on d, 2 inverted wing backs on s, 2 wingers on a, 1 dlp on s, one am on a, 2 pressing forwards on a and attacking mentality, it seems really unbalanced, but it seems to work against tank parkers), and what seems to help greatly against conceding, is marking the oppositon playmaker and nobody else (i even mark the opposition playmaker with my bpd and it creates no problems whatsoever in defence because i guess it influences the me decision making so i guess his attributes are greatly nerfed when marked by a great bpd, i concede around 4 or 5 goals a season this way)

  5. 25 minutes ago, BuryBlade said:

    This isn’t true. The game calculates minute by minute - it doesn’t decide at the start of the half what the result is going to be. Every decision made alters the outcome/timeline.

    Besides this, it's an interesting discussion with some devs like seb being quoted on the match engine. That's how i understood it when i read the thread.

  6. 6 hours ago, BuryBlade said:

    It’s amazing how these threads keep appearing every day 🤦‍♂️ Get the tinfoil hats out people! 

    Putting the more constructive hat on;

    1) This happens in real life. Regularly.

    2) Uploading your tactic/match PKM file would allow people to assist - but based on your post I doubt you’ll do either.

    3) You have to make changes/respond to what’s happening in front of you during the game. 

    They could be appearing on regular basis because fm20 is far from perfect when match engine is in question. It makes it more frustating is that the game has a lot of potential to be tweaked to user's liking but it isn't. No need for tinfoil hats, it's his opinion and i partly agree with it, it makes me mad when you have clear cut chances, high quality chances, you've done everything you can, but the game decides you won't score and the opposition will due to luck (match engine calculating result for the first half, then second, and whenever the changes are made). It happens in the game, it happens in real life as well, pretty much on the regular basis, but still despite it happening, it makes you frustrated when you can't do anything about it, only thing that helps is that after i while i can spot that type of match from the start and do subs right away. There are different kinds of people playing fm, which like different aspects of the game. I hate the micromanaging of the tactical play, and i hate this match engine regardless of the tactics, but i love the other aspects od the game like the team building, player development, long term management, financial managment, history building and so on

  7. 1 hour ago, Cuchulainn said:

    I don't know how many guys are using lower tier league teams but the Euro fixing is killing me. I've got Linfield, Irish Premier League (Northern Ireland), and we had Salzsburg in a playoff for Champions League.

    Granted real world we should be destroyed. However, I managed to get tactics right were I lost by one goal each game. A effin' penalty in both games from the exact same set play!!!

    Not the first time this has happened either.  Regular occurrence when I've punched above my weight in Euro competitions.

    Do you have those leagues such as austria and other mid level leagues loaded? I've noticed a considerable difference in league and team quality when they are loaded and when they are not, and this only tends to shift towards not loaded nation clubs getting weaker and weaker as the time goes on.

  8. 17 minutes ago, rossenori said:

    i like how in your tactics if you lower your mentality, it changes your passing to shorter and tempo to lower lol like that's not how defensive teams play 

    I really hope they rework the mentality system so it mostly defines the risk taking like moving out of formation, player individual freedom on a team level, time wasting, working harder to get a goal even if it means conceding where you can see clear linear progression from very defensive to very attacking. It could also make some way for more versatile team instructions where you can clearly define what do you exactly want. For the past few versions, tactic creation has been very counterintuitive and confusing for me, it's better this year because team structure is at least something that is determined by instructions + mentality, but,  it's still strange to me and my view on football that you could long term score more goals when you put less emphasis on goal scoring with the same tactic than on attacking where you would put more emphasis on goal scoring and less on keeping the clean sheet. Sure, in a single match, or 2, or 10 that could be the case, but shouldn't be longer you go with that approach. Maybe that could be the key, changing mentality with objective/focus like protect the score at all cost/ protect the score/ play it safer/ balanced/ play it more risky/ chase a goal/ chase a goal at all cost. Defined that way it becomes much more clear what mental approach you want from your team, because after all, the score is often the most important part of the game.

  9. 25 minutes ago, yolixeya said:

    Yes, it's theoretical and we don't need to introduce variables like complacency to complicate things. Complacency will influence 20% chance in a same way it influences 10% chance. Your example of me throwing a ball at my friend and winning just because I throw the ball more is also purely theoretical. This is something I see in the game, players are taking lower quality shots more on attacking mentalities. Do you disagree with that statement?

    I agree, but it's not like they do not do risky passes on lower mentalities. They will simply just look for better opportunity to do so. You can still be pretty attacking. My point is that pure risk will not yield you more goals. Good player movement, good supply of the ball, good decisions will.  You can shoot yourself in a foot by being overly attacking in some games because you will not allow your players to do those things. I'm not saying it will happen all the time, but in some games it will.  Been there, done that.

    I can agree that i see it in the game, but i don't agree that it should be like that.

    Yes it's theoretical, but i've given all the important parameters and why it would be 55-45% as an example. I've hypotheticaly defined chance long term which is much easier to actually prove (think of it as a casino roullete), the more you pile 55-45% chances over the longer periods of time, more is the chance that you will win at the end (or the casino for that matter). It's much harder to prove and define why is something individual a certain percent chance, because you must put in much more parameters, and in the end, all those parameters only lead to 1 of the 2 things, hit or miss. 

    Then you could define pure risk as something totally not needed, because no manager or sane person would say risk more just for the sake of it, doesn't matter that it doesn't result in more goals. Opposed to that, managers will risk more so they achieve that good attacking movement, so they can get the ball to attacking players and supply them, even if it means losing posession and risking counters and conceding and trust their players to make good decisions so they don't do that, works sometimes, sometimes not and they shoot themselves in the foot. Higher the team quality, higher the chance it does work.

  10. 1 hour ago, yolixeya said:

    You said it yourself. Mentality is about risk taking, that includes that the player will take lower quality shots. Aguero will not shoot from halfway line but it just might take that 10% shot on very attacking mentality while on positive mentality possibly there would be less urgent play, skipping 10% shot to allow for some player movement to create opening for 20% chance. I can agree to disagree about this but that's how I view it.

    You seem to think attacking mentality equals better chances and I simply think that is not necessarily true. If it was like that then you could make any tactic better simply by switching to more attacking mentality.

    That's ok, but again, what do you constitute as a 10% shot?  Shot from a specific position which ends up as a goal when Aguero shoots it and it gets in 1/10 of the time, when a average EPL player shoots it with 12 finishing and gets in 1/10 of the time? What if that player is in form, is it then 12% shot? What if he's complacent, is it 7% shot? 10% shot says nothing, it's purely theoretical speak that has no real background, and yes if team puts an emphasis on attack, if the players are getting more exposed to get into better positions to score a goal, chance of scoring a goal should be higher than not doing risky moves because, those risky moves are made to actually score a goal, if there is no difference, or if there is a considerable lower quality of chances, then there's no rational reason to take a risk, ever. Someone taking a shot from a certain position is their invidual decision, and especially elite players with good decisions won't make poorer choices because their team is playing attacking and risk taking. You're not risk taking when you take 10% shot instead of patiently waiting for a 20% chance, what's the risk in that? Negative risking of not scoring a goal? No, that's a single decision, which should go together with team instructions and player instructions. Risk is a risk if you can get punished for it, lose something, in this case concede a goal because you're more open, more out of formation, less organized when you lose the ball. And only reason why would you take that risk, it to score a goal, and you won't risk everything for a very low quality chances, most people won't, but you risk so you can create a better chance and score.

    No, attacking shouldn't guarantee that tactic is better, but it should mean it scores more than balanced one in the long run, if it's unbalanced, also concede much more. How much of both should be determined by team quality, oppositon quality and mentality and tactical instructions. It doesn't need to be abstract rocket science with 10% shots and 20% chances (because that requires to answer who is taking that shot, exactly from where, how is it taken, his morale, his form, his ca and attributes in that match in that situation, who is the opposition keeper, how good is he, how good are defenders, their morale, form, pressure, weather and much more). Since we don't know how engine really works, those percents don't mean anything, it's down to players ability to do the right thing in a situation, and attacking mentality shouldn't have detrimental effect on that, but again, on conceding. If it's down to a right thing to do in a attacking mentality, it's for sure to create a good attacking chance, not to lower the quality of your chances, otherwise, call the balanced mentality attacking then, and attacking -"pranking the opponents by pretending play NFL"

  11. 57 minutes ago, yolixeya said:

    By attacking more in real life you somewhat increase your chance of scoring a goal but the risk to reward ratio is usually not good. It's just hard to break very defensive team and I think big teams don't get enough credit for those wins because everyone alread expects them to win there. On FM when you attack more, you don't just risk a conceding more (and the FM shoud be a more punishing in this regard) but you also accept to take lower quality shots. Players will be less patient with their passing and shooting if their mentality is very attacking than balanced. And nobody said that by attacking more you will score less (at least that I am aware of), but I would say that attacking more doesn't guarantee you scoring more.

    Players being less patient with their shooting and passing leading to lower quality shots/chances is a thing i can hear being tossed around like a mantra. How can you explain that or prove that? Sergio Aguero, or let's say any premier league player  will make a more poor decision, have a worse shot, or a worse dribble because the team is playing very attacking football? He would shoot from halfway across the field because you demand more attacking direct football?  Then the PI option shoot on sight seems reduntant. Being more attacking is a mentality, with a single goal to score a goal or more, not about your players doing things that lower your chances of scoring, but quite the opposite, it's done to rise the chances of scoring thus taking risks to do that which can result in conceding more. it's about risk taking, player quality is something that can determines the quality and outcome of that risk. I agree that it does not guarantee it in short term, in one game, but in long term it does, because more effort and risk taking to score a goal will lead to it. 

    For example, you and your friend throw balls to each other trying to hit each other without the other one catching it and throwing back and hitting you (two teams), you have  better (finishing), (throwing) and (composure) and (handling). You have two approaches. Balanced, in which you something keep the ball for some period of time, waiting for him to get his guard down, to get bored or plotting and planing exactly how to hit him and not risk him catching it and hitting you. And a very attacking approach where you try to hit him as many times as you can because you know you're better. You have 90 minutes. It's very logical to assume that if you try to hit him as many times as you can, you are going to hit him more times, but he is also going to hit you more times as well ( number which depends on his mentality). It won't really drastically affect your aim or your decisions because you are throwing it more rapidly. During the 90 minutes, you would definately hit him more with an attacking approach (which is long term here), you would get hit more, and the number of total hits depends mainly on both sides mentality. But because you are better, you are inclined to be attacking because in 90 minutes it's better to have more of 55-45%, chances than less of them. If it was short term (5 minutes), he probably could be in an unlikely lead even tho he is worse due to various reasons (you were complacent, having bad five minutes, not feeling strong, pure bad luck etc etc). 

    It's no different in football.

  12. 4 minutes ago, Pasonen said:

    Problem is in real world you can score by shooting directly to goalkeeper direction by lobbing or placing it to 5-hole. A shot from side movement or other surprising situation shot. Its just before this can be done defending have to come tighter and high tempo, over attack tactics cant give even more shots on target. It should be other way. Too attack -> Lost possession and counter goals.

    To attack more and score less is a paradox. It logically makes no sense. More lost possession and counter goals don't translate into you scoring less, it's only a risk when it comes to conceding, because that's what counter goals and lost possession translate into. If you attack more, you risk more, but by risking more, you should also create more and score more than by not risking more. In real life it happens sometimes that risk doesn't pay off, but that doesn't mean that if they were not attacking the result would be different and they would score more goals than not attacking.

    Second important thing is also player and team quality. In real life, good teams relative to their league play more attacking, because with their quality, reward of scoring is higher than the risk of conceding in the long run, and vice versa for poor teams, they play mainly defensive football because of their quality, by risking equal open game they would almost certainly lose, as they would score less than team with more quality. But it doesn't mean they would score less if they played more attacking, it would mean they would concede much more and score more but not as much as they concede, which overall isn't the best deal in the history of deals for them.


    And generally, when talking about score that's about it, whenever you call it risk assesment, balance, philosophy in long term. Individual matches are something different, then comes into effect the opposition frustration, bad luck, bad tactical set up, which lead to the breaking of this general logical conclusion and pattern, which ocasionally happens.

    And that logical conclusion is: by attacking more, you don't risk less goals, you risk conceding more, which is a much bigger deal when you are a small team because your team quality makes it unlikely that you are going to score more or same as your superior opponents than concede, and less of a deal when you are a good team, because the opposite is true.

  13. I really love the game since the new update, you can more easily see what is going wrong in a game and change it, i'm once again enjoying seeing the me unfold, i've seen some great goals, great combinations, and there are more goals now, which was my main concern for the previous updates, like beta. I've played a whole season on the new patch, and you can really clearly see the difference between different ability players and how they perform on the pitch. Also what i like the most is that my players are punishing weak teams that are happy to pass the ball between their centre backs for 90mins with good aggresive pressing. One on ones are now much better converted, especially by great players, and it's real pretty too. What i like the most is that the ME now motivates me to get better players and see them perform better, not in a same way as the inferior players. As for the Newcastle-Man City game in a post above, i think it's a matter of opinion, i think no sort of morale or tactical wizard can bridge the real gap between the qualiity of city and newcastle players, except newcastle hoping for a miracle or city having a really bad day, and that is finally presented in a good way

  14. 22 hours ago, akkm said:

    that's recency bias....last year was it fm19 that won the poll yet see where it's featuring in this one. when the dust settles it seems fm17 will be the non recency biased winner...there's plenty to take away from that

    Nope, could be only that people that were finding fm19 to be the best, now find fm20 to be the best, and since there is only one option to vote, fm19 is so low in the polls.

    Fm 12 as the rock solid first place for me, i couldn't believe how pretty the goals were when i played it, then fm 18 and fm 13 somewhere behind, pretty equal and enjoyable. As for Fm20, all i can say is that i hope for a complete new ME made for fm21

  15. Venom & Faith 100P is working great for 20.2.4 after i tweaked IWB's to CWB(a)'s and moved defensive line to much higher. Early to tell after only 7 games, but finally destroying bus parking teams with 6-0 (3 games), 7-1 (one game), 5-0 (one game), other 2 are champions league games against Dortmund (which is maybe a little bit weaker than my side), winning 3-0 away and 4-1 home. Goals are evenly scored between two advanced forwards, left winger seems to get most assists together with midfielders and complete wing backs, and which is surprising, right winger on attack seems to score almost as much as AF, mostly from left wing assist. Left footed winger on left, right footed on right wing

    Thanks knap, your tactics are amazing as always

  16. 6 minutes ago, Welshace said:


    Progress isn't linear in the development of a game like this.... i.e if they tell us they have completed 50% of the match engine issues, the very next day something will come along and unbalance the whole damn engine and they will be back at 0% ... there is no benefit in giving any time limit on themselves, none whatsoever.

    It has always been this way and always will I suspect... it will be ready when they feel comfortable in the progress made and that's it really..   what you can do is look at when they have released the updates in previous years and will be fairly safe in thinking it will be similar this year.... i.e march.

    That would be a very good argument if the whole concept of me was in development for a year, or maybe year and a half, but it's been a lot more years then that where the me has the same foundation as in previous versions, and people just don't expect the series to go backwards, or to be a step down (doesn't matter if it's subjective or objective, there are problems with the ME, and it's the fundamental ones, which weren't present before).

    It's not about the money either, i would gladly give 50e more to have any match engine from fm12 to fm19 with fm20 features and mechanics that aren't fm20 ME. It's just about not enjoying something that has a lot of potential, and it's right there, you know there is a version of match engine that is enjoyable to you, but don't get to have new features, like better and varied newgen generation, so you have to chose which is more important to you. Doesn't have to be new database either, people would make that on their own, just some previous remastered fm and that would be the first thing that i would spend my money on

  17. 40 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

    What on earth makes you think it isn't calculated that way? It's perfectly possible to calculate the success percentage of an individual dribble based on attributes and current minute fitness, attitude and weather before choosing whether to depict the individual dribble on screen. This is, in fact, how FM works and has done since they first introduced a 3D engine and possibly for several  generations before. it's not vintage Premier Manager or a gambling game showing you a few pre-cooked animation sequences based on a quick calculation of the relative strength of the teams plus luck.

    That's the problem with going down the 'scripted' rabbit hole, we soon get this misunderstanding creeping in.



    Mostly things that were explained by devs in general feedback thread, like calculating the score during warm up for the first half, which will stay the same as calculated if there are no changes. Be it 2d or 3d doesn't make a difference for the background processes and actions unfolding. And there is a post just above you.

    As for the gambling part, i'll give you a different argument. In this game, your great striker will for some reason have a terrible game where he misses a lot of 1v1's, lots of other chances, oppositon gk having a great game and so on. This happens in real life, but in real life, players aren't measured in attributes, or morale, and it's down to him not doing the right thing in the right moment because of x-y-z reasons. In the game, this can also happen, but there is no x-y-z reason behind, your player is tied to his attributes, his morale, his form, weather, but in the end, it's the calculation that matters, that random factor, in one game playing the same positon, same match against same opposition he will score none, in that repeated one he can score 5 without any changes by player or the ai.  There's no x-y-z reason behind why other than base reason like attributes, form, weather, and you can't do anything other than maximize that chance by playing a good tactic with a good player, but in the end, it's a gamble, not a simulation, as doing the same thing over and over brings different results. 

    Ironic part is that gamble, on the large scale, does great  job of simulating football results, as the football results of the future from our viewpoints will be random. We can't know what will be result of some real future game be as we don't have parameters of that game, we can guess, but the result will be the consequence of these parameters. In Fm, as it human made code, we can know the parameters (well not really us, but people that made the code), but still not know the score and unfolding of that game, 

  18. 4 hours ago, Welshace said:

    Oh ok, not what I thought then.. a more philosophical question then a practical one then...  

    I would still argue that this point, at least for me, is a moot one. It makes no difference to me that the exact same simulation was calculated two minutes ago or on the fly in front of me because thats the only difference... one of timing really, given that any changes I or the ai make recalculates anyway.

    I think you guys are pushing this discussion in the wrong way. There's no question about it if game is calculated in advance or not, it physically has to be either way like you've said, and for that matter, that's okay. The real problem is how it is calculated in advance and there are 2 ways to go.  First one is to calculate it before it has even started, to take all parameters like weather, player fitness, attributes, tactics, add some randomness and you get a result that can change according to the changes you or the ai makes during the half, then translate it into match highlights. That is the easy way, and not nowhere near real simulation, you've got yourself a dice throwing simulator maybe. Second way is where, for example weather is not calculated directly into the result, but it is calculated into the percentage of success of a single decision (for example a dribble), and that decision adds on and is calculated in the mix with other decisions (and also add some randomness), and if the calculations click, you get a goal, or corner, or a free kick, or offside, or some event. It wouldn't make game much slower really, as there is the same or similar number of calculations, only problem is that  it would take much more work to make and much more programing, and also much more brainstorming about logical consequences and A LOT of tweaking to get in line with realistic football

    There is a difference between these two methods, because in the first case, you are limited as there are no real logical consequences why are things happening the way they are as the result is directly calculated by throwing every parameter in and then recalculating the whole thing by changing that parameter), in the second case, you are changing one parameter, for which you hope it will change other parameters, which then effects other tied parameters, which lead to a different outcome of the result. Not easy, not simple to code, but the year is not 2002 anymore.

    As for the argument why does it matter how it is calculated, when the end goal is the same, it does, because in the first case, it's result and stats simulation, in the second it's football simulation which then leads to results and stats being simulated as the consequence of football, not turned around, and that alone, changes what you can do, how much freedom you have and what do you do with it, and in the end, that changes the result. If i know that i can't make my tactic more effective due to the way something is coded and pre-determined, that's no fun anymore.

  19. 23 minutes ago, Gee_Simpson said:

    It certainly wouldn't work in real life, I know it's only a game but it's supposed to be a sim. 2 box to box players in a 4231 shouldn't work imo, well not with such aggressive wingbacks also. If it works for you though then great :)

    If you really want to keep it realistic, no coach in the world would say, my left midfielder will play a deep lying playmaker, my right midfielder will play box to box midfielder, and then expect players to do what he told them. He would give them individual instructions what to do, where they should be in offense, transition, defense, what kind of movement he expects from them, what to do in relation to the team, train them to do that, other than that, it's up to the player, his ability, and what is his instict to do in a given situation(and training is important mostly because of that). Second thing is that if you would ask any coach if he would have wanted Yaya Toure duplicated in his prime or one yaya toure and some average mc that is seen as "deep lying playmaker", he certainly wouldn't go with the second option

  20. 8 minutes ago, roykela said:

    Playing in Slovenia now and it seems like the mid-season break is also treated as a passive season change.
    It's only when players come back from mid-season holiday, in January, i can set Code of Conduct.
    I also receive a Mid-season break fitness report AND a Pre-season fitness report.

    Anyone else playing in the Slovenian top division and experiencing the same?

    Same in Serbian Superleague, also, can't choose when does the pre-season start in summer ever, and the problem is that default start is around 3rd/4th of july, and the first competitive game is 2 weeks later.

  21. 3 hours ago, knap said:



    Have you any results with winger option?

    Yep, used it in every champions league game, my squad in 2023 as Red Star Belgrade is quite strong tho, attribute wise, but still behind Liverpool, Barca, Real Madrid,  somewhere around Napoli/Atletico Madrid level. Sorry for messy ss, had problems logging in through computer for some strange reason. Luka Jović top goal scorer with 9 goals


  22. 1 hour ago, erzet17 said:

    Tactic tested: Sympathyforthedevilknapzaipvol2p108. MCity season (2037/2038), patch 20.2.4(beta). Defensive 5/5 - Ofensive 4.5/5. In my opinion TOP1.



    FM20.2.3SympathyforthedevilKnapZaipVOL2P108FACC.fmf 45.03 kB · 12 downloads

    Try it with just wingers on attack instead of inverted wings, seems to make it better on offensive on beta

  23. 4 minutes ago, Travis Bickle said:

    Is there a general consensus as to whether strikers score more goals on this beta? I am not talking your own players, just around the world, Messi finishing the season with 12 goals or so etc? 

    Yep, it's under review and Si is working on that, you can find that thread in beta fm bugs subforum, too few goals thread

  • Create New...