Dotsworthy

Does this also apply when a human player delegates training? I.e. assistant manager and youth coaches?

It depends on what level constitutes decent. I've been playing around simming saves to see how youth players develop in FM24 and I've not seen anyone spineless make it to bottom half prem level (130-140CA). I think it would be difficult given that their other hidden attributes are likely to be mediocre also. If you managed to get one that's highly professional he could do okay I guess.

I've found the loan manager to be frustrating because he will generally get you more interest in your player, but when offering them out for fees & wages you often get offers slightly under or different and the loan manager will reject them out of hand. The only solution I've found is to tweak the offer based on what the club countered with (lower fee, non-playing wage etc) until the AI finally decides to offer something the loan manager will accept. It is time consuming and means offering out for lower than initial but eventually it will work.

18 year olds will also have a margin of error, you might not get an accurate picture until they are older, and even then it's not 100%. I don't know how a coaches rating of a player is calculated from save to save, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some randomness to it, there are a lot of youth in the game. I'm also pretty sure the players CA & reputation factor in the PA rating. Then you have the coaches judging potential stat. Not saying there isn't an issue but it could also be working as intended and your coach isn't the most accurate/your player does not have the reputation of an exciting prospect. It's not uncommon to see this. I had two players in a golden generation, one given 5 stars (164 pa) and one given 3 stars (who actually had 160 pa). The 3 star one actually ended up the better player.

When it comes to assessing youth players the margin of error is much higher than your first team. It's not unrealistic as clubs misjudge prospects all the time in real life. If you want exact values then you need the editor.

I've only seen decreases when staff are in their 60s except when they've failed coaching courses and their determination has taken a hit. This might not be considered realistic, but I don't see why we don't have CA and PA values for staff from your technical director. But then staffing in the game as a whole could do with an overhaul.

I think this is the core of a lot of people's frustrations with player interactions in the game. It's the only area where your assistant gives little to no advice, the reward for a positive interaction is a slight bump in morale, but the consequences for getting it wrong can be an angry player for a couple of months. As a system it is fine and can add to the immersion once you understand the quirks of it but for new players I don't know how they are supposed to work it out.

Oh I agree, the balance isn't quite right. In my mind if you want to play defensive football in this game you don't use a defensive tactic, but a defensive formation like 5-2-3.

The first thing I do in most saves where my squad is still a bit mixed is use fluid counter on a positive mentality and it works really well.

By that definition though this is a team that is weaker and more likely to concede chances regardless of what strategy they play. So the argument there is not that defensive strategies are too weak, but that attacking strategies are too easy for weaker teams in the game to use.

Putting aside the accuracy of the testing, I don't think a 5 point swing from morale can be seen as insignificant to the normal FM player. Sure, if you are using a meta tactic with a super squad it will feel trivial, but in a normal game that could mean the difference between a title/2nd place, or relegation.

I tend to get these when the stakes are low in a game/pre-season so I just assume the player can't be bothered, so I wonder if professionalism and ambition are big drivers. Balanced is a pretty average personality so maybe these guys just aren't as hungry as other youth players, although you would think young players would be less prone to it It would be interesting to know what triggers it.

The agent will also say there is interest in the player when there is none. I've always assumed it is just flavor text to represent the agent giving the hard sell. The only thing I have noticed with displaying how keen you are is getting more (or less) detailed feedback from the agent.

I think that's just the inherent risk of marking or pressing, if you get it wrong either way you open up space for the opponent. I would just try it and see, there is a going to be an element of trial and error in setting up your defence. I'd also think about your/the AIs formation and the quality of the two players as well. I don't like to tight mark on wingers as they tend to be really fast and good at evading their marker, sometimes I set tight marking on the centre backs and midfielders and let the wide players and striker press more. You also don't have to mess with any of these settings, if I'm struggling against a wide player I'll often change my WB to a FB and that does the trick. I like these articles from the FM blog, they are pretty good: https://www.footballmanager.com/the-byline/using-opposition-instructions-marginal-gains https://www.footballmanager.com/the-byline/mastering-press-fm23

Marking is by default zonal so if you tick tight marking they will position themselves closer to the player that has entered their zone. I don't know about being pulled out of position because I haven't experienced it myself but it could be selecting the PI to mark a specific player? That would be the downside to man marking systems like what Bielsa experienced at Leeds. A pressing trigger is when a player leaves their defensive position to actively take the ball off the opposing player. In real life you see this when teams try to pass it short out at the back or get caught dawdling on the ball. For me pressing is about winning possession whereas marking is about restricting space. Higher pressing won't cause players to get more tight to their man. I don't know the specifics of how pressing triggers are activated but I would assume how sensitive the trigger. It's also governed by line of engagement/prevent short GK distribution so if you have a mid block or a low block your players will tend to wait until the opposition team has moved up the pitch. In the past I've used a lower line of engagement with a normal defensive line but very high pressing, to utilize the compacted space and hit the team on the break. Personally if I wanted to contain an AM I would put someone in the DM position with either tight marking PI and/or tight marking OI.

Do we know what criteria the DOF will use to sign players? (other than their tendencies of course). My assumption is that they will meet the signing philosophies of the club but I'm not sure at all that it will do that, and I've seen the squad planner mentioned. Would they target the players formation or their own formation/playing style? Even personality would be relevant as clubs in real life do look at how players will fit in within the club. One thing I do find annoying about the DOF is that his scout reports will replace the original one by your scout, which is more detailed and will include analysis. Sometimes I'll look for the scout report and the DOF's report has two strengths/weaknesses and that's it. It's infuriating.

If you sign them before they turn 19 you are usually fine, I've never had an issue.

In CM03/04 I once signed Julian Rantier who it turned out had just 120CA, but had rolled 20 Acceleration, Pace and Jumping Reach. He would win the ball in the air and chase his own flick ons all day long and the match engine couldn't handle it At least FM has attribute weighting, which makes seeing these kind of edge cases impossible in game.

In what way? High CA/PA? From my own experience and doing some long term simming the balance seems fine, with a few quirks if you are willing to dig deeper. As you venture further into the game there is some inflation in high PA players but not all of those players will max out.

If they already have licensed teams in the game and a new unity engine next year it would be a good marketing win for them. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the Etihad and the Amex next year.

It's a problem shared by turn based strategy games, which FM isn't but has the same hallmarks as: an unlimited amount of time to make decisions, a need to add complexity to the game in every iteration which the AI cannot necessarily keep up with, and large communities who can deconstruct the game at length. FM has an additional problem of trying to be an immersive simulation, which does not always correlate with level of difficulty. I think a hard mode would be somewhat popular but that often means handicapping the player and buffing the AI, which players don't really like. Playing Civ 6 on diety with all the AIs bonuses feels totally different to playing on say King, and players are split on whether that's a good thing. I don't think we'll really see anything monumental with difficulty until machine learning as a tool is cheap enough to be implemented into a £40 game. That said, if the made a mode where you had less money, more injuries, is harder to keep team morale and cohesion, then i would definitely give that a go.

I did look at the whole league though, half the league won at least half (or just above) their home games, as opposed to just two teams winning half their away games. A brief look at the premier League for the last ten years, and most seasons the top 8 will win at least 10/19 at home, and between 2-4 will win away. The only exceptions are 13/14 for some reason and 20/21, which was the COVID season where there was no fans.

In the premier League the team with the best away record last season (Arsenal) won 12/19 games, losing 4 times, the only other team to win at least 10 away games was Man City The best home record is Man City with 17/19 and 1 loss. 9 teams managed to win at least 10/19. I know this is anecdotal but I would believe this would be pretty consistent in English football for the last 10-15 years, so 8-9% doesn't feel too much at all.

You seem to be using a custom skin. Have you checked if that is the issue?

A player who is not natural in a given position will perform worse though, so it should be taken into account. While the player might have the perfect attributes they take a pretty significant hit to their decision making if they cannot play in that position. The star ratings for positions seem much better this iteration. Prior to FM24 every full back in the game could only get to 2 star rating for IWB role. I think the star rating tries to replicate the fluctuating nature of footballing talent which I quite like. In real life players can play like elite level premier league talent for two years but then regress back to their actual level, or be star players at the start of your save only to become overshadowed by better talent as your go on. It could do with a bit of clarity for the new player.