Ein

Yes, player duties could be taken into consideration in combination with the TIs as well. So in general attacking duties increase risk and defensive duties reduce it. If enough people agree with it, we could try putting it forward in the Suggestions subforum. I won't bother doing it myself as I never seem to get any reply/feedback on Bug Reports. Maybe some mod or 'FM aristocrat' who agrees with it could push it.

I think it would work for casual players/beginners as well (mentality is determined for you based on what you choose). It could potentially disrupt exploit tactics that employ attacking mentality + all sort of risky TIs. And, more importantly, it would be more intuitive and elegantly simple. Just some more examples: Tiki taka: counterpress (+ risk), high block (+ risk), high DL (+ risk), short passing (- risk), low tempo (- risk), hold shape (- risk) -> balanced Gegenpress: counterpress (+ risk), counter (+ risk), high block (+ risk), high DL (+ risk), quick tempo (+ risk) -> attacking Direct counter-attacking: counter (+ risk), regroup (- risk), direct passing (+ risk), quick tempo (+ risk), low block (- risk), -> balanced/positive Catenaccio: short passing (- risk), low block (- risk), hold shape (- risk), regroup (- risk) -> defensive Say you're playing direct counter-attacking and want to protect a lead. You could, among other things, change to shorter passing/lower tempo which would automatically change the mentality to cautious.

Exactly. Like how team shape can no longer be selected manually but is automatically determined from the player duties/number of support roles. Team mentality should likewise be determined from the combined effect of the various TIs. TIs like counter, countpress, higher tempo, more direct the passing, higher block, higher DL, etc increases risk and viceversa. So for example a tiki taka style would have a combination of high risk instructions (counterpress, high block/DL) and low risk ones (short passing, low tempo, hold shape) so the overall mentality would coalesce to balanced.

I play in 2D with comprehensive highlights. I just cannot stand 3D. I almost always play with clubs that changed manager in real life and/or performed badly in the previous RL season. I tend to reverse all transfers in and out via the pre-game editor. When transfers have competition bonus clauses (which cannot be edited out) I leave those transfers in place or avoid playing with the club. Sometimes I holiday till the end of season and take over a relegated club (e.g. my favourite FM19 save was with a relegated Everton). Saves do not last very long. When I achieve success consistently, I quit the save and start a new one with a different club.

It's still unbalanced if you can't just pick a defensive formation without taking into account the multitude of factors you mention but then you can just pick up an attacking formation like gegenpress and overachieve by default. Balanced mentality, mid block, high defensive line, press more, just 2 defensive duties. As I wrote earlier, even the purportedly defensive tactics that are posted on the forum are designed to be fairly offensive. That is more or less how I like to play and I don't consider it particularly defensive. I still get above average possession and certainly do not achieve these types of wins: That's mostly a caricatural description of defensive football though. Like in various styles of martial arts, defensive football is about using the opponent's initiative against him to create chances and deliver blows. The above example shows this clearly well with the defensive side still decisively dominating in terms of xG despite the lower number of shots and much lower possession numbers.

I think they should focus on fixing the current balance problem instead of worrying about what might happen if they solve it or getting caught up in all sorts of hypothetical arguments that people could come up with. The priority should be on dealing with the existing imbalance rather than getting sidetracked by potential objections or imagined consequences. The supposed expectation that a lower division team ought to play like elite clubs is ridiculous and is not something that we as end users should cater to or worry about.

Most top teams will play an attacking/high press style* because they can afford to buy the best players but it's still possible to do well/overachieve with defensive/counter attacking tactics. West Ham are a case in point. The OP's point is that it no longer seems possible to do well with a defensive tactic, as West Ham are doing IRL, in contract to an offensive tactic like gegenpress. *The claim is in itself arguable. We've had winners of European competitions (West Ham, Roma), winners of the Serie A (Conte's Inter), winners of La Liga (Atletico). Juventus are currently second with below average possession and progressive passes, etc.

This is another thing I could never understand. Is counter attacking football enabled by risk-taking (positive or higher mentality) or by selecting counter in the 'in transition' tactical screen which triggers counter attacks in the right circumstances? Once again, mentality (risk) seems to be superfluous because everything it does can be defined from the in possession, in transition and out of possession tactical screens. Selecting counter, counterpress, pressing more, direct passing, roaming from position, higher tempo, etc, etc all involve an element of risk.

In FM20 I remember doing well both with a slow-tempo possession tactic (with Spurs, who had a technical but slow squad) and a direct fast-paced tactic (with Roma who were required to play direct by the board and had Dzeko as a TM). However, in both instances I employed a positive mentality. In fact, many successful defensive/pragmatic tactics posted here on the forum still use a normal/positive/attacking mentality (then adjust the player roles and TIs accordingly). So I suspect that, essentially, the mentality "slider" is broken. Furthermore, the default tactical templates do not make sense. Defensive tactics like catenaccio have lower mentalities (which by default means less pressing, lower tempo, safer passing, etc) but on top of that still have all the TIs that do those things selected. Again, I suspect that mentality is a relic from past FM tactical systems that no longer works in the current system.

In theory no. The TI depends on the press type (it will only be triggered when the line of engagement is reached). The OI press is triggered when the opposition player receives the ball irrespective of the position on the pitch.

Interesting. Which would you say is the latest FM version that still has a balanced ME?

Clubs hire by reputation. It probably means your reputation hasn't increased sufficiently as yet.

That was @NineCloudNine's point above. 0 GK saves vs 12!

So people don't trust the game ("the game is scripted") only to blindly trust what the game's Xg system is telling them... Games are won by scoring goals not by having more possession, shooting more on goal, etc. Even if Xg numbers are trustworthy and reliable, they count for nothing. IRL, based on Xg, Chelsea should be fighting for a Champions League spot and Man Utd should be in a relegation scrap.

I sometimes go back to CM93 so I definitely don't mind going back... I plan to go back to FM20. At the moment I'm updating its database. A couple of guys mentioned FM19. Why that one in particular?

I actually don't think that new players will necessarily find the game easy. New players managing a weak team might intuitively think that they should play defensively until they discover they're better off playing gegenpress. New players might read and take heed of what the assistant says until they discover it's just random noise. Being experienced and good at the game is mostly about knowing what things to avoid.

I don't do it either. I like to have full control over my team. What I enjoy most in the game is finding, buying and developing my own players, and implementing and maintaining a sound squad hierarchy and wage structure.

Do you by any chance watch matches in full or extended? Watching FM matches in full exposes such defects and breaks the immersion. I firmly believe that it's better both for immersion and for one's own time to watch matches in comprehensive. The ME is extremely approximative and the tactical intricacies can be observed better by cutting out all the ME noise. This is why I don't understand why people are so hung up about the ME. I cannot fathom that people actually bother to watch FM games in full. Sometimes I can barely stand RL ones...

Absolutely not true. As I wrote earlier, I could win everything by playing almost a clean slate tactic without bothering about anything else (OIs, data hub analysis, adjusting to opposition, etc). As long as the formation and roles are balanced and you keep the players happy you can do extremely well. But it shouldn't be that easy. You should have to do that something extra or be extremely lucky to win, say, the quadruple.

Difficulty is one of the most important aspects of a game, surely. Easy games become boring quickly so I don't entirely understand how a game can both be the best and the easiest. My planned long-term FM22 save with Roma ended up lasting just 2 years because the team literally won every competition it took part in (Serie A, Coppa Italia, UECL in the first season; Serie A, Coppa Italia, Champions League, both super cups in the second) using a very simple tactic (counter, counterpress, high LoE/DL, play out of defence), no OIs, and without ever performing opposition or data hub analysis.

Does it matter at all in terms of performance/morale or is it purely cosmetic?

150 CA players can be very good, it depends on the spread of their attributes. Mancini, in particular, is a very well rounded central defender with excellent mentals. Some clubs seem to have low asking prices by default. Roma is one of those clubs. Even in FM22, the likes of Mancini, Cristante and Karsdorp (who was very good in that edition) are all initially valued below €20m.

Personality, attributes that fit team DNA (especially ones that cannot be trained), nationality (prefer HG).

Then you just contradicted what you said earlier (native people setting their own values, which is bound to be subjective). If there is oversight, it doesn't show in the case brought about by the OP and in a number of other examples.

Having things done by individual researchers without any form of oversight or standardisation is not ideal. The player database has this issue as well. Some clubs tend to have overpowered players, both in terms of attributes and personalities e.g. one particular Italian club is always filled with model citizens, model pros and perfectionists and does much better in FM than in real life.