Interpreting the editors team instructions... help, please.

[Finknottle]

Some years back someone posted an interpretation of the editors teama instructions. Some are obvious but others a little ambiguous. They are listed in the editor thus. Attacking, depth, directness, flamboyancy, flexibility, free roles, marking, offside, sitting back, tempo, playmaker, width an finally, formation preferences. Does anyone still happen to have said interpretations and if so, would they post them, please? In the mean while I shall delve back as far as the forum will allow, in an attempt to find them. Kind regards, as usual.

[NakS]

Before I go through each team instructions, I shall remind that AI managers tactics are based on TC logic and on its flexiility. So, tactics attributes does not define AI strategy in every game and in every context. For most of tactics attributes, I think a good way to understand them is as tactical tendencies rather than inflexible behaviors. As far as I am aware, AI managers use the full range of the TC and almost the full range of shouts IIRC to fit the context. Attacking attribute is a good example to illustratre my point.

Attacking - How agressive the AI manager is when it comes to strategy call. So, attacking attributes does not equal directly to thementality slider for every games, it is a perception biais towards agressive play. For example, if odds are tight a 1 attacking manager will go for a defensive starting strategy as he is a cautious manager. A 20 attacking manager will go for the offensive option as he is more risk averse.

Flamboyancy - Related to philosophy settings (average creative freedom). A 10 flamboyancy manager will go for a balanced philosophy, Mourinho is a adept of the balanced philosophy for example. A 19 flamboyancy manager will pick a very fluid system, like Wenger and Guardiola. IIRC, Ferguson was inbetween and a "fluid" manager. As far as I am aware, AI manager don't seem to switch around philosophy that much.

I have studied the 2 previous attributes in depth through testing, and I am pretty confident in their meaning. I have not studied thouroughly the other but here is my take.

Directness - Related to the passing setting. The higher the attributes, the more direct will be the passing either or both with team "more or less" option or shouts, based on TC default logic of course.

Pressing - Related to closing down, stand off more or hassle opponent more, the higher the attribute, the less averse is the manager regarding closing down intensity. Once again, if the strategy is "counter" and the pressing attribute is 20, it does not mean average closing down will be 20, it means the AI manager is very likely to use the "close down more" team option, and maybe the "hassle opponent".

Marking - Related to marking system, the higher the more the AI manager has a tendency to use man-marking. So a 1 marking AI manager will use a zonal system most of the time for example.

Width - Related to the width setting, the higher the attribute, the more likely AI manager will play toward a wider game. The thing is I don't know for sure if AI manager take into account pitch size, so it could alter as well default width choice...and the the tendency come into play. I don't know if IA is that developped, but it wouldn't surprised me if it was the case.

Depth - Related to the defensive line, tendency to play a lower defensive line, so the higher the attribute is the lower the defensive line will be. Be careful and keep in mind this is relative to the TC logic. So a depth 20 manager playing an offensive strategy will not play a D-Line of 1, but he will lower his D-Line from the default D-Line value.

Tempo - Related to tempo of course, the higher the attribute, the higher the AI manager will try to play fast tempo game and increase or decrease tempo based on TC logic.

Sitting back - Related to time wasting, represent the tendency of the urgency of play. 10 means a neutral, don't waste time more than necessary but don't rush as well and default time wasting slider is very likely not to be altered. A 1 sitting back manager will always increase the urgency of play (ie decrease time wasting from the default setting), on the contrary a 20 sitting back manager will decrease the urgency of play (increase time wasting from the default setting).

Now are the tricky settings, non team sliders related.

Use of playmaker - Related to the playmaker box. The higher the attribute, the more likely AI manager is to pick one of his player as a playmaker.

Flexibility - A tricky one, but during my testing I have put flexibility to 1 and AI coach seems to keep a unique formation through the whole season of monitoring whereas a 20 seems to adapt more, but it could be pure coincidence as I didn't design a method to investigate this and observations were carried out during other tests. So if I'd have to put a meaning on this, it would be the tendency to divert form preferred formations, 1 being a "442 or nothing manager" for example if he has 442 as a preferred formation. Keep in mind as well, there is other "tendencie" like "trying to fit player into preferred formations IIRC.

Free roles: - Related to the roaming/free role thing. The tendency to play with more or less free role than the TC suggested.

Offside - Tendency to use offside trap, the higher, the more likely. More testing is definitely needed here, could be weird to play offside trap in a defensive strategy for example. So I am not exactly sure what is the impact on offside setting.

Hope it helps Oescus, unfortunately AI monitoring is very time consuming and I don't have much time at the moment to provide more in depth explanation.

[Finknottle]

Thanks very much NakS, your time and effort are muchly appreciated. My thinking is to compare my team instructions with those from the editor and possibly try to use them in new testing save. I have looked at various peoples tactics and I find that there is a large variation of settings from one to another and then from them all to the in game tactics creator. I wonder how they can all be correct and still be successful. I am trying to find a sort of 'average' of tactics settings that, hopefully, be able to be used for all teams. At present, I am using the tactics creator with a few player instructions slightly altered where I feel it is appropiate. I have had some success but like yourself I find that in 'messing' about with tactics leaves me with little time to actually play the game.

[EnriqueZove]

Thank you for explanation.