Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 "What we've got here is a failure to communicate"

About Flußkrebs

  • Rank
  1. Just to add to this, in my York City save we have just been promoted to League 2 (season 4) and are currently sat top of the table after 13 games. For the majority of my save I've used a relatively aggressive 442 tactic which lines up like this: CFs-CFs WMa-CMs-CMs-WMa FBs-CDd-CDd -FBs I've been going with the most 'generic' roles in each position so I can tinker with PIs based on the opposition and use mentality to control the game (usually switch between Attacking, Balanced, and Cautious). For the past 25 games or so (end of last season, start of this season) I've switched to a: TQa-CFs WMa-CMs-CMs-WMa FBs-CDd-CDd-FBs And I've had fantastic results out of the TQ: (As an aside, I really don't buy the 'this player doesn't have the attributes to play X role, outside of BPD. I've had brilliant players playing as TQ, CF etc who have shown as mostly red for that role on the tactics screen. They do well because relative to the opposition they are good, and its the hard coded behaviour that I'm after. Something to think about.) These are the observed changes I've seen watching the games with our main man as a TQa rather than the previous CFs: Runs very wide off the ball- sometimes even left of the left channel/closer to the wing. This usually finds him either in a pocket of space behind the opposition full back when there is a turnover. The TQ in my mind is a very special sort of striker as he can act as a de facto target man. My player has very good heading and balance for this level, and the hard coded ball magnet status of the TQ (as a playmaker) usually makes him the first outlet on the counter. As the only Very Attacking mentality player I have up front, he will often when not on the ball make short, fast runs into the box from the edge of the penalty area, losing his man. This is super useful as I have anecdotally noticed a massive increase in squareing of the ball to the TQ. Why? I'm assuming because of this ball magnet playmaker status that he is, the rightwinger and CF will be much more likely to look for the pass to him rather than shoot themselves. And because he's playing as a striker rather than a 10 or a winger, this really results in many more squared balls and goals than the usual blasting into the side netting which I know a lot of players find annoying. Because of his built in risky passing/playmaker role, he will also thread some very nice through balls and get nice inswinging crosses in from the left (he is right footed). He still leads the press (I have more urgent pressing on, and play with HLOE/HLOD). I do not play with prevent short GK distribution. Tips I've picked up from users such as @Experienced Defender about this being counterproductive are true, for the most part. The TQ with my pressing settings results in a very good balance of him pressing the Right CB and FB without going overboard. The main downside(?) I have noticed is that he is now my main scorer. Sorted by goals scored: My tactic used to spread the goals equally around both widemen and both strikers. Now he is perhaps the single most important outlet for the side. Messi-esque? Not necessarily a bad thing, as we are doing very well in the league, and if the results are coming in I'm happy to keep this going. But definitely a shift in playstyle. Thankfully he hasn't been badly injured yet! So yes- the Trequartista as a striker in a 2 man pair at least is a fantastic role. I have not had much luck at all with a TQ as a number 10 but the rest of the thread deals with that. Try him out in a 352 or 442, the behaviour makes for some really satisfying highlights! PS: The tactic works primarily due to an absolutely aerially dominant and fast (for League 2) centre-back I have who has the trait 'stays back at all times'. I play him as a CB-D but he covers for the vast majority of long balls and counters. Edit: Some more info taking a good 2-1 away against Tranmere. The Trequartista scored both our goals. With the ball: Without the ball: First goal, lovely example of the squaring of the ball (will have to make do with screenshots): Stevenson, our right sided CF steals the ball off their LCB as they try to play out from the back. Stevenson squares it to King (TQa), who has lost his man. King squeezes it past the keeper, 1-0. I can't upload any more screenshots due to size limitations, but the other goal was a flicked lob of a finish (player trait) after a short cross from the WMa who was just inside the box, after the TQ camped in the 6 yard box. King also made 2 key passes, one of which was a CCC. The CCC on reflection was actually gorgeous- a Tranmere freekick from a dangerous position gets blocked by our CM, who immediately plays a long ball to King at the halfway line (Target Man like behaviour...). King runs down the wing with it, cuts inside on his right foot, and squares it with the outside of his foot to our right WMa who puts it just wide. Should've been an assist!
  2. First: you have play for set pieces on- but you're complaining that you are only scoring set pieces? Turn it off if you don't want lots of set pieces! Honestly? It's definitely not impossible to play high possession/slow football with a diamond tactic and get lots of nice CCC style goals but I've always had more success playing quite fast, vertical, counterattacking football when using a diamond. For example I'd be more inclined to use an AF and maybe a PF(a/s) or T(a) and then use a supporting player behind them to link up the play. The other thing I'd point out when playing a narrow formation (and the Diamond is probably the narrowest of the lot imo) in FM (and IRL) is that your two fullbacks/wingbacks are going to be the primary source of assists in this tactic. I've played diamonds where both fullbacks have got 20/25+ assists a season. Crossing is still strong in FM and because of the natural congestion through the centre of the park the primary outlet will always be a ball to the flank. Personally I'd embrace this natural aspect of the play and turn my midfield into a workmanlike defensive unit which wins the ball and recycles it to the flanks for a speedy attack. People might disagree but here's what I'd change about your tactic (whilst keeping the theme of heavy possession). I'll start with TIs as the problems jump out to me more. I'm not convinced Much Higher DL and LoE is necessary for this tactic but I'd test it out and see how many balls over the top goals you're conceding. I'm also not necessarily sold on focus through the middle- this operates mainly as a mentality booster so check your midfield players' individual mentalities and see how it looks. I've already commented about how I personally prefer to use Counter with the 442 diamond but as it wouldn't fit your style I won't push that point. The main worry I have about Regroup in this tactic is that the 442 diamond is just not a particularly good shape for defending in. I get that when you have the ball you can't concede, but trying to defend in the Diamond shape as you have it leaves you exposed down the flanks. Some possible changes which would make this better in my opinion: 1) Switch to an aggressive pressing/counterpressing system whereby when you lose the ball you immediately try and win it back before being exposed down the flanks, then you settle back into a patient possession system. 2) Defend wider. I think this is a +++ for 442 diamond systems. (Whilst on the topic of width, I think you can take off attack narrower. The system already is naturally very narrow, why would you want to tell them to attack even more narrowly?) 3) Switch at least one if not both of the CMs to Carrilero. They will get very bang average ratings but the overall solidity of the system will improve. And finally for TIs- I'd just leave disciplined/expressive. If you wanted a Total Football style of play (which is complicated to implement and I'm not convinced this would fit the bill) then you could in theory make all the roles even more generic (e.g. DM(d), AM(a)) and add be more expressive but I would leave it off for now. If having the WBs in the WB position is working for you then feel free to keep it. The alternative of course would be to change them to something like WB(a) or CWB(s), but if they work well then I;d leave them. With those PIs you've given them that seems to be 80% of a CWB(s) anyway right? I like the Halfback as well. I'm not convinced that two BPDs is necessary. BPD will be much more likely to launch long balls out to the Wingbacks or over the top to the strikers. If you want this style of play (more counterattacking) then keep both of them in, otherwise switch one to a CD(D). It's the midfield which I'm really not convinced by. I think CM(s) would be ok as roles in this tactic. But not with roam from position and get further forward. Combined with your TI of focus play through the middle isn't this effectively like having two BBMs? Seems like you're kind of vacating the centre of the park. Your holding midfielder is a Half Back, so he's going to be dropping between the centre backs, turning and looking for passing options, but all the other players ahead of him are runners of some sort (with those TIs on the CMs at least). There is only one attack duty player in your tactic, a shadow striker. I have never used two CF(s) with a shadow striker behind them, but I could see it sort of working. But in this tactic? The shadow striker is a direct runner, I'm not convinced that is suitable for a slow patient build up tactic. Here is how I would set up this tactic then, all things considered. I've tried to make the fewest changes to it as possible. As @sporadicsmiles said above, I would personalIy set this up with a three man midfield (I struggle with consistency out of an AM(c)) and/or make it more direct and counterattacking, but below should keep the style of play whilst also 1) increading defensive solidity in the middle of the park and increasing penetration/interplay down the flanks. I also don't know your players so it could be flipped down the middle if needed. CF(a) CF(s) AM(s) Car(s) Car(s) WB(s) HB(d) CWB(s) BPD(d) CD(d) Positive Mentality Shorter Passing, Lower Tempo, Play out of Defence, WBIB Hold Shape and regroup (now that I'm thinking about this I'm not convinced these are both necessary, but if they are working then leave them) Defend Wider, (M)HLE, (M)HLD
  3. Hi guys, what are your thoughts on the direction to develop this player in: The AI signed him before I took over for £5m, but his technique is never going to be good enough to fit into my system. Seems like he could be a decent BWM but his work rate is a little low for my liking for that role. Holding midfielder (DM, A, HB?) could fit but again I am not playing with that kind of a system. His potential and strong mentals generally mean he'll probably develop into a decent player and I'd love to turn a profit on him but going forward I doubt he'll get into my team. Loan him out and see how he gets on maybe? Or just try and sell for a small profit maybe and stick a sell on clause on? And more generally, what you tend to do with high potential defensive full backs regens who aren't a) tall enough to be retrained as a CB b) good enough going forward to play as a full-back (in most systems people tend to play, NFBs aren't hugely popular!). BWM/DM? Cheers. EDIT: Not to mention the gaping hole in his game for a modern FB which is his low speed
  4. Hmm food for thought. And in case you're wondering- no , the 2 AM's behind the AF was not particularly successful no exploits there as far as I can see.
  5. What a gem- looks like a classic "strong" poacher imo, with decent dribbling. Obviously depending on the tactic you go for he could play any of AF, P, PFa, CFa, so whatever suits the system. Depends on how he develops of coourse but in my mind his speed isn't quite as high as I'd like for an off the shoulder AF and his link up play (e.g. passing, teamwork, vision) not quite high enough to be a DLF/CFs. Strong and good in the air so could win enough knockdowns to play with on rushing teammates (midfielders, wide forwards, a strike partner). And of course probably best role is as a Poacher or player with the PIs to play like a poacher. Haaland type? Off the ball, strong, fast (enough), finishing and composure etc. Tbh he'll fit in pretty much any non support role so just mold him how you want and you'll be golden I'm sure .
  6. Introduction NOTE: This post got quite rambling. The stuff in the title is mostly in the 'exploit tactics' section. There are also some questions in the conclusion section. I've been reading a lot of tactics threads on here, other forums and so on. One of things that I've thought about quite a bit recently has been so called 'exploit' tactics. These are the kind of tactics which you get on various sites which run tests to see how good they are and generally tend to go quite against what a lot of the thought out tactics threads might go for. I put exploit in inverted commas because unlike with say, set piece routines, it can often be difficult to pin point quite how some of these tactics exploit the game engine, although I'm sure they do. I think in FM18 3 striker formations were OP and it was 'exploity' to play with them, but I don't know if there are any obvious exploits in FM20. One of the things that I find really off putting in the game with set pieces is where certain set ups are clearly 'game breaking' and score far more goals than you see in real football. It can be so hard drawing that line between a 'good' set piece routine and an 'exploity' set piece routine that I often don't bother with set pieces, at risk of ruining the fun. I want to talk about building a really good tactic, the kind of tactic where you're getting good results and playing how you want to play, and how exploit or plug n play tactics impact that process. Context My current FM20 save I've just finished up with 4 seasons at LKS Lodz- as part of the FM 20 free trial challenge I had to run a 442 diamond- it worked really well the first two seasons, I think mainly due to being an incredibly good on the counter and my team's rep being low enough that the AI kept playing as if we were massive underdogs. As we got better and the AI played accordingly I had to adjust and ran, mostly, a narrow 4132 winning the league and then coming a disappointing 4th the next season. It's time for a new challenge and I got a big money move to Villa. It's going alright so far: I'm sat in 9th and need a top half finish, so there are ups and downs. I've been playing around with 3 at the back systems for the most part, trying out a lot of the interesting stuff on the various Atalanta threads that have been knocking around (that 3-4-3 asymmetric system you can see is me best guessing a tactic that was teased on one of the threads, need to follow that up to try and work out what exactly is being used). I love tactic replications. This is not a thread about me asking for personal tactic advice- although I might try that later on. I am aware that a) I shouldn't really be complaining as I'm 'on target' with AV and know roughly what to do to fix the issues and b) me trying to play an Atalanta tactic with an inherited 2023 Villa squad is far from optimal (although, thinking about it, if the AI hadn't sold Wesley maybe they would have quite a good squad for it..., a question for another day). I've been trying to play around with a 3 at the back system as part of me is still adverse to playing standard formations after 4 years of narrow diamond and narrow 4132. I used a half back with a decent amount of success especially in the early days at LKS Lodz, which often left me with something resembling a 5212 in build up, so my 'head canon' is that my in game manager would play with something similar. Plus the Villa I inherited have some great centre backs. As part of my tactic building process I ended up looking at lots of tactic sites, including some of the more 'exploit' or 'plug and play' oriented ones. Here's a thing: None of the 'best' tactics on these sites are 3 or 5 at the back I can hear your objections already- you absolutely can use 3 or 5 at the back with success, you just have to tailor it, those tactics don''t have 3 or 5atb because they can't 'cheese' their way to wins with those formations etc. etc. I get that. It just got me thinking about the relationship with these kinds of tactics and my own tactic building. Is there a general issue with non 4 at the back systems? Maybe as simple as preventing another man attacking? Or deeper in the FM20 match engine? For example, here is a trial tactic I threw together. I haven't tried it yet and it will almost certainly have issues. The interesting bit is that front three. I noticed lots and lots of the 'optimum' tactics on the testing sites for this year's engine had front threes of 2 AM(a)s behind an AF, or a single AM(a) behind 2 AFs. I've toned it down somewhat to 2 Am(s) for a variety of reasons but it got me thinking: if it works, and this is somehow an 'exploit', what are your thoughts on using this as a front three? It isn't that far fetched. It got me thinking about the wider interactions between these exploit, or cheese, or plug n play tactics, and their relationship with 'proper' tactic building. Exploit tactics Here are 5 reasons why you might think exploit tactics are bad, or at least my instinct reaction to them. I've written some thoughts on each of them afterwards, not rebuttals, but thoughts, and I'd like your opinions please. 1) They make the game 'un-fun' Some people love just downloading the 'best' tactic and winning every game. More power to them, I'm a firm believer in people playing video games however they like, in whichever way they get the most enjoyment from. But for me at least, even if I can't be bothered to spend hours tinkering and building a tactic, and I run with one of the game's presets, playing with a tactic which gets me excessively unrealistic results takes much of the shine off the game and I quickly get bored. 2) They are exploiting the AI, and this is "cheating" The AI clearly copes better with certain situations than other situations. I'm not enough of an expert to know exactly how, but it must expect certain actions given certain game states, or be hard wired in such a way so certain tactics will always cause it to break a bit. If the AI is known to be, say, really rubbish at defending against double advanced forwards or when a small team is gegenpressing in the AI's half, in such a way that it will tend to respond in a way which jeopardises itself, is that something that you should then avoid because it is cheating? I'm not sure on this. The common thread of this post is clear here: doing some of the advantageous things that exploit tactics do isn't exploitative or cheating, but doing all of them feels like it is. 3) They are exploiting the match-engine, and this is "cheating" The match engine a) doesn't perfectly mimic football/real life (obviously, how could it!) and b) has limitations such that certain roles, positions, formations can be straight up 'better' than others. Often when a new role is introduced it can be a little OP, for example. You might say well, of course, the game doesn't commit that every option will be just as good or viable as every other option, just like in real life that isn't the case. But the match engine clearly prefers high pressing for example to low pressing. Maybe that is because high pressing is in some sense 'optimal' in real football- most of the top teams play with some sort of relatively high press so there must be some advantage to it (usually). Again, I'm not sure what the correct answer on this one is either. It's something that comes up on tactic recreations a lot too,someone manages to perfectly mimic a playstyle for an IRL team, but sadly the results are underwhelming in game and it isn't as impressive as the new team tearing up the league. 4) They aren't tailored to your squad This is a good point, usually. One of the most important things about tactic creation is making sure you have the players to fit the style of football you are telling them to play. But two things on this- one, some of the tactic testing sites out there will have tactics tailored to 'poor' squads, tactics suited to the National League level players. Maybe then those kind of tactics aren't really exploitative in the same way and are merely good solid tactics (again, where do you draw the line?). But at the other end of the spectrum, what if you really do have players who can play pretty much whatever ridiculous style of Uber-gegenpressing, ultra attacking, high line system you are asking them to play (e.g. Liverpool, Man city)? And somewhere in between- some of the 'unrealistic' plug and play tactics are simply quite boring double winger attack, double AF attack, double box to box 442s. Lots of teams can play this style of football and have the players to suit. If I accidentally made an 'exploit' tactic myself, as it is what suits my squad, is that an issue? 5) You haven't come up with them yourself This resonates with me, but as established many people like to plug n play. That's fine in my book. But here's a thing- is the issue with tactics with names like WHIRLWIND MEGA TORNADO 41131!!!! that you didn't work out that this is a really good/game breaking tactic? Like if I was one of these tactic creators in my own personal save, and if the aim of most people's regular saves, with caveats, is to win as many games as possible, then should I be trying to invent the mega tactic? Is the issue that I downloaded it and didn't come up with it myself, but if I had come up with some ridiculous cheesey exploit tactic and win loads of games then that's ok? 6) They are unrealistic (ties into number 4) 1, the game isn't super realistic and we know this. Like all the tactic recreations I love, many of them simply don't actually work (that well) in game and that's ok. FM is just a game after all it isn't a physics and psychology simulator,which is what you'd need to sim footy. 2, some of these tactics aren't that unrealistic (I'm looking at you symmetrical attacking and pressing 442s). Or like in FM18, 3 strikers up top isn't that unrealistic, but it was exploity. What's the best way of navigating this? Conclusions This post turned it into an extremely long winded way of me asking What if you're 'built from scratch' tactic ends up looking like an exploit tactic and is that a bad thing? Should 'proper' tacticians be learning lessons from exploit tactics and trying to integrate them into our own tactics? Are exploit tactics mostly overblown anyway and it's usually set piece exploits which are getting them their mad results? Cheers all.
  • Create New...