If you think the current fm20 match engine is great, post your tactics

[noikeee]

I disagree with removing mentality. Maybe it shouldn't have the huge effects it has now, but just think of it as, "freedom to run forward, urgency, and willingness to abandon the default positioning". Maybe urgency is already covered by the tempo TI, but you'd still need a new TI to replace the positioning effects if you remove mentality as an option. 

Also mentality as it is, is a nice quick shortcut to making your entire team more attacking or more defensive without having to press 5 buttons. If you're desperate for a goal you can just move up from balanced to overload in one click, whereas without mentality you'd need to click on the width setting, tempo setting, pressing, defensive line etc. That'd just be a bad UI. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by noikeee

[Mitja]

2 minutes ago, noikeee said:

I disagree with removing mentality. Maybe it shouldn't have the huge effects it has now, but just think of it as, "freedom to run forward, urgency, and willingness to abandon the default positioning". Maybe urgency is already covered by the tempo TI, but you'd still need a new TI to replace the positioning effects if you remove mentality as an option. 

Player positioning is already covered by different player roles and duties for each position. Plus so many other PIs and PPMs. Would any manager say to player ''listen today we are playing 20% more attacking I want you to be 20% more aggressive with your forward runs/attacking positioning''? No. He would change his role to something more aggressive. From FB to WB. I really don't think manager can have such micro control over players behaviour. Also urgency is covered by tempo, time wasting and many other PIs, TIs and PPMs. Whats the point of having all these different roles and duties if they transform to something alse just by clicking menatlity instruction which doesn't even exist irl? And even more importantly it transforms those claer and simple instructions to what? 20% more, less? This is not how it should work because it doesn't work that way irl.  

12 minutes ago, noikeee said:

Also mentality as it is, is a nice quick shortcut to making your entire team more attacking or more defensive without having to press 5 buttons. If you're desperate for a goal you can just move up from balanced to overload in one click, whereas without mentality you'd need to click on the width setting, tempo setting, pressing, defensive line etc. That'd just be a bad UI. 

But you shouldn't be able to do that, its totally unrealistic,. Also if you go from balanced to overload you need to do a little more than just upping mentality, at least that's how AI does. There is no - more attacking/defensive thing irl. Team's mentality is defined by all other instructions and player roles and duties. Teams don't play more attacking because they up mentality, but because they changed their aproach with maybe different formation, higher d-line, play with more width they will use over-lapping fullbacks, more aggressive player roles/duties etc.  

[Mitja]

And it's mentality that transforms avarage team into Liverpool just because it changed to Overload. Both extremes of mentality tactics are questionable at least, no real life team plays with such urgency or lethargy even when chasing/defending the lead.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Mitja

[BigV]

5 minutes ago, Mitja said:

And it's mentality that transforms avarage team into Liverpool just because it changed to Overload. Both extremes of mentality tactics are questionable at least, no real life team plays like that.

For extreme cases it did, end of games where you've needed a goal it had its purpose especially if you had a banging team and could thrash teams. 

I also thought the old style was much more useful in terms of what they want. Like you knew exactly what you wanted, now you have to faf around to get where you want to go. It makes sense though cause if you have a positive ment and low line of defece and low press you're countering essentially just in a good way and not "too defensive". 

I think roles are becoming much more basic in terms of what they want, e.g. playmaker, ball winner b2b- barely any CM-d/s/a or modern days AP-A because the playmaking doesn't essentially do what it does in FM. E.G. Kdb doesnt act like KDB in FM, AP-S just recieves passes and throws them wide or to striker and barely has the motion to bypass the whole defence when he can IRL. I'd argue for a mezzala too, how often do mezz defend or close down in the channels? they comeback to their origin spot of CML/CMR but fm leaves them wider leaving huge gaps regardless if you're on Supoort or attack. 

[noikeee]

39 minutes ago, Mitja said:

Player positioning is already covered by different player roles and duties for each position. Plus so many other PIs and PPMs. Would any manager say to player ''listen today we are playing 20% more attacking I want you to be 20% more aggressive with your forward runs/attacking positioning''? No. He would change his role to something more aggressive. From FB to WB. I really don't think manager can have such micro control over players behaviour. Also urgency is covered by tempo, time wasting and many other PIs, TIs and PPMs. Whats the point of having all these different roles and duties if they transform to something alse just by clicking menatlity instruction which doesn't even exist irl? And even more importantly it transforms those claer and simple instructions to what? 20% more, less? This is not how it should work because it doesn't work that way irl.  

But you shouldn't be able to do that, its totally unrealistic,. Also if you go from balanced to overload you need to do a little more than just upping mentality, at least that's how AI does. There is no - more attacking/defensive thing irl. Team's mentality is defined by all other instructions and player roles and duties. Teams don't play more attacking because they up mentality, but because they changed their aproach with maybe different formation, higher d-line, play with more width they will use over-lapping fullbacks, more aggressive player roles/duties etc.  

Look at real life managers throughout a match. 10 minutes to go, they suddenly go a goal down and are about to be knocked out of the cup. Do they a) patiently call every player in to the bench, and explain a detailed set of different instructions player by player, informing them they should now increase their tempo, play wider, press more, play a higher line, play more aggressive roles individually player by player.... or do they b) yell "EVERYBODY! GO FORWARD NOW! LET'S TAKE SOME RISKS I WANT EVERYONE TO ATTACK MORE NOW, LET'S GO GET THE GOAL GUYS THERE'S ONLY 10 MINUTES TO GO"

Edited December 4, 2019 by noikeee

[Mitja]

3 minutes ago, BigV said:

For extreme cases it did, end of games where you've needed a goal it had its purpose especially if you had a banging team and could thrash teams. 

 

Yes but all that can be achieved without mentality, I have no problems with overload tactics. What I wanted to say football produced by extreme mentality tactics is unrealistic, it's not possible to play with such urgency. Also no team would ever try to do nothing with ball and play as lethargic football as v. defensive. Especially not in same division. 

[Weller1980]

Any feedback on the improvements made with through ball decisions in the final 1/3? Not had a chance to play yet.

[BigV]

2 minutes ago, Mitja said:

Yes but all that can be achieved without mentality, I have no problems with overload tactics. What I wanted to say football produced by extreme mentality tactics is unrealistic, it's not possible to play with such urgency. Also no team would ever try to do nothing with ball and play as lethargic football as v. defensive. Especially not in same division. 

Agreed to some extent, urgency in final few mins to score in a cup match or end of a game is down to "pushing your luck" you throw everything or nothing. Also that was there to defend a lead, park the bus option now. Extreme cases but happened more often than we think. UCL games and CUP matches is where it's usually at. Can agree to disagree though so we dont clogg up the thread. @noikeee makes a very good point tho. 

[Mitja]

5 minutes ago, noikeee said:

Look at real life managers throughout a match. 10 minutes to go, they suddenly go a goal down and are about to be knocked out of the cup. Do they a) patiently call every player in to the bench, and explain a detailed set of different instructions player by player, informing them they should now increase their tempo, play wider, press more, play a higher line, play more aggressive roles individually player by player.... or do they b) yell "EVERYBODY! GO FORWARD NOW! LET'S TAKE SOME RISKS I WANT EVERYONE TO ATTACK MORE NOW, LET'S GO GET THE GOAL GUYS THERE'S ONLY 10 MINUTES TO GO"

None of that. For such scenario they have practised attacking aproach on trainig ground. Mentality has nothing to do with it.

[Mitja]

1 minute ago, BigV said:

Agreed to some extent, urgency in final few mins to score in a cup match or end of a game is down to "pushing your luck" you throw everything or nothing.

You have so many options to play more ''attacking'' with different TIs and everything. Nothing to do with mentality, as there is no mentality irl.

[Mitja]

3 minutes ago, Mitja said:

EVERYBODY! GO FORWARD NOW! LET'S TAKE SOME RISKS I WANT EVERYONE TO ATTACK MORE NOW, LET'S GO GET THE GOAL GUYS THERE'S ONLY 10 MINUTES TO GO"

This is a shout not tactics. Demand more, Push forward.

[Tyburn]

There is a mental shift between holding on to a lead and going for the win. Play it safe, take risks. Mentality is there just as much as technique. Unless we’re all robots.

[pheelf]

If I'm understanding you correctly @Mitja, the solution you propose is to remove mentality completely and replace it with a far more complex set of instructions?

How would an AI which already struggles with mentality cope with that?

This seems to be a circular argument that happens repeatedly on these forums and no matter how much we want to go around the houses always returns to one fundamental point - the strength of a simulation is inextricably linked to the amount of processing power available to generate it.

The only way the AI is ever going to improve is if it 'sees' more options when deciding on a course of action. The problem is that the more options you code the more calculations have to be carried out and before you know it we're playing a game which may be incredibly realistic but runs slower than molasses on anything but a high end computer cutting away the vast majority of the player base which would be curtains for SI.

If you accept the limitations of the game and stop viewing it as a true to life simulation then a lot of the frustration goes away. If you are waiting for Flight simulation levels of immersion in FM then I'm sorry to disappoint you but you are going to have a long wait coming.

I have to ask the question as to what people are expecting for £30? You want a high end simulation then be prepared to fork out thousands for each new version. I think people need to temper their expectations a bit and realize that SI can only move at a pace relative to the customers playing their product. I know it's frustrating but it's just the way it is.  

[Mitja]

1 minute ago, pheelf said:

If I'm understanding you correctly @Mitja, the solution you propose is to remove mentality completely and replace it with a far more complex set of instructions?

 

no no there is no need to replace it with anything since all instructions needed are already there. even those are too much and complex, especially for AI. 

[pheelf]

6 minutes ago, Mitja said:

no no there is no need to replace it with anything since all instructions needed are already there. even those are too much and complex, especially for AI. 

That adds complexity though. Try to envisage how the AI works.

In game it will change mentality which has all the instructions pre-loaded for it. Now if we remove that layer of simplification. The AI then has to choose all the different aspects of mentality which would have previously been decided for it individually (tempo, width etc).

So in effect you're increasing the number of choices the AI can make but also increasing the burden on processing as it would then need to weigh up all the different options against each other which given the amount of instructions in the tactic creator is probably in the millions in terms of different possible combinations. That's without even factoring in calculations based on how the opposition is playing.

I get where you are coming from with regards to the problems around mentality (teams on lower mentalities getting high amounts of possession when it should be the opposite) and I agree that situation isn't right but I don't see how removing mentality will help that. Besides, what you are proposing would require a complete rewrite of the ME for something which isn't guaranteed to actually improve matters.

[Mitja]

1 minute ago, pheelf said:

That adds complexity though. Try to envisage how the AI works.

In game it will change mentality which has all the instructions pre-loaded for it. Now if we remove that layer of simplification. The AI then has to choose all the different aspects of mentality which would have previously been decided for it individually (tempo, width etc).

So in effect you're increasing the number of choices the AI can make but also increasing the burden on processing as it would then need to weigh up all the different options against each other which given the amount of instructions in the tactic creator is probably in the millions in terms of different possible combinations. That's without even factoring in calculations based on how the opposition is playing.

I get where you are coming from with regards to the problems around mentality (teams on lower mentalities getting high amounts of possession when it should be the opposite) and I agree that situation isn't right but I don't see how removing mentality will help that. Besides, what you are proposing would require a complete rewrite of the ME for something which isn't guaranteed to actually improve matters.

not really sure if what you wrote is all true.  what they could do is to have only three mentalities at first. imo both extremes of mentalities is not how football is played. football on attacking is phisically not possible. lethargy of play and possession stats with defensive tactics simply doesn't happen irl. 

[Mitja]

and most importantly football different tactics are supposed to produce would actually resemble what it claims. there are improvements in this department in fm20 though. 

[pheelf]

3 minutes ago, Mitja said:

not really sure if what you wrote is all true.  what they could do is to have only three mentalities at first. imo both extremes of mentalities is not how football is played. football on attacking is phisically not possible. lethargy of play and possession stats with defensive tactics simply doesn't happen irl. 

Which part of what I've written do you think is untrue?

As I said, I agree with you that the way in which the AI uses the mentalities is flawed but simply removing them doesn't solve the problem in my view. The true solution lies in increasing the amount of calculations for the simulation but as I said earlier there are very strong reasons why SI can't do that.

To be honest, I don't think SI ever imagined that players would be using the attacking mentality throughout a game. Perhaps they could penalize teams more in terms of conditioning that seek to press relentlessly all game long. I thought they might have been trying to do that with the intensity bar in tactics but the fact that players can regularly play a high tempo, high intensity pressing style all game long season in, season out without suffering any serious consequences is something which they need to look into.

Similarly, with lower mentalities they may need to tweak some of the TIs that come pre-loaded with them to give a more authentic representation of how teams play when they seek to take a more cautious approach.

Maybe they could even split the mentalities like they did with the TIs. Doing that would enable a team to defend with a low block for e.g. while removing the need to play a slow patient passing game when in possession shown with lower mentalities.

2 minutes ago, Mitja said:

and most importantly football different tactics are supposed to produce would actually resemble what it claims. there are improvements in this department in fm20 though. 

Yes and no. There are loads of aspects in real football that are impossible to replicate in FM although as you say over time that is improving. Also, if your players performed precisely every time what had been instructed to them it would be a pretty poor simulation in my book.

[Mitja]

 

5 minutes ago, pheelf said:

Yes and no. There are loads of aspects in real football that are impossible to replicate in FM although as you say over time that is improving. Also, if your players performed precisely every time what had been instructed to them it would be a pretty poor simulation in my book.

I don't think they would need to rewrite the ME if they kept three basic mentalities. I wouldn't want to comment on technical aspects because I'm not really comfortable there. 

I've seen AI PL clubs using attacking mentality even awey from home. But my bigger issue is with too defensive tactics. Today I've seen SI member saying that use of too defensive tactic was looked at with latest patch. That's good. I really can't agree any PL team playing on defensive mentality as basic aproach for a game. Defensive tactics yes, but not defensive mentality as it is far too lethargic for anything except possession. What they need to do with defensive tactics is to make them much more intense without having too many aggressive duties. If you think about it for a moment, how is that possible currently? It's not, especially with v.defensive and defensive mentality. These menatlities are useless practically.  And attacking are OP.

[ceefax the cat]

If you suddenly change your mentality in FM from balanced to ultra attacking without changing anything else, you're probably left with a ridiculous, disjointed, ineffectual tactic given the roles you have and have to change a load of things anyway in order to really impact the game, so that argument is crap. And there's nothing to stop you having a go-for-broke tactic saved anyway.

[Girbaud]

On 27/11/2019 at 15:44, Lilah said:

I don’t think the current match engine is great, but I am having a lot of success.  This is the first FM where the Raumdeuter role is working great for me.  I play a 4-3-3 (4-1-2-2-1) with a Wide Target Man and Raumdeuter who are both my top scorers.  Central forwards don’t seem to work as productively for me in this FM, and experimenting with different ones hasn’t changed the results much because central passing seems nerfed so the wide men end up being the main scorers.  They don’t pass to the forward even if he is wide open and the forward never scores easy 1v1s.  Tempted to just go strikerless like FM17.

Please share a pic of your tactic maybe?

How do you set up your midfield and FBs to cater for the raum's lack of defensive contribution?

[BigV]

8 hours ago, ceefax the cat said:

If you suddenly change your mentality in FM from balanced to ultra attacking without changing anything else, you're probably left with a ridiculous, disjointed, ineffectual tactic given the roles you have and have to change a load of things anyway in order to really impact the game, so that argument is crap. And there's nothing to stop you having a go-for-broke tactic saved anyway.

That's a cause for concern. Likes of SOME top teams have ball winners yet most lower teams base on ball winners to win the ball and keep it. Putting that in both defensive or ultra attacking works. BWM seem like the REAL B2B to me and have been since fm15, the constant rates you get from BBM is so low that the role of "roam from position" seems to worsen their ability be that a bug or a PI thats locked that needs changing.

It's made sense to go from defensive to ultra to get a goal theoretically and FM based, worked a number of times in FM17 for me against big teams. Having a high mentality with cb's on defend and wb/fb on support or defend will still do their jobs just slightly higher up. It's the attacking line and midfield that get caught, have a DLP on S and any other on support will still work though (apart from BBM). 

The new way is okay but the old style is still a thing and is better for understanding purposes imo. Should've never of changed it, you knew exactly what you wanted and if it didnt work you'd chance. Now you faf around with the defensive line, LOE, roles, tempo. Under fm17 you could still attacking to defend with the same roles and same tactic and it would work sometimes as it should.  

[Mitja]

1 hour ago, BigV said:

That's a cause for concern. Likes of SOME top teams have ball winners yet most lower teams base on ball winners to win the ball and keep it. Putting that in both defensive or ultra attacking works. BWM seem like the REAL B2B to me and have been since fm15, the constant rates you get from BBM is so low that the role of "roam from position" seems to worsen their ability be that a bug or a PI thats locked that needs changing.

It's made sense to go from defensive to ultra to get a goal theoretically and FM based, worked a number of times in FM17 for me against big teams. Having a high mentality with cb's on defend and wb/fb on support or defend will still do their jobs just slightly higher up. It's the attacking line and midfield that get caught, have a DLP on S and any other on support will still work though (apart from BBM). 

The new way is okay but the old style is still a thing and is better for understanding purposes imo. Should've never of changed it, you knew exactly what you wanted and if it didnt work you'd chance. Now you faf around with the defensive line, LOE, roles, tempo. Under fm17 you could still attacking to defend with the same roles and same tactic and it would work sometimes as it should.  

Why concern every team has more than just plan A. You ''need'' to have defensive, standard and especially attacking tactics it's also how AI plays and combines tactics activly even in one match. That's why there are three slots. And ceefax was absolutely right about changing only mentality, it takes a little more than that. But isn't it the fun part of tactics?

[herne79]

18 minutes ago, Mitja said:

You ''need'' to have defensive, standard and especially attacking tactics

No, we really don't "need" this.  We can play in this manner if we choose but there is no need to.

[Mitja]

17 minutes ago, herne79 said:

No, we really don't "need" this.  We can play in this manner if we choose but there is no need to.

That's why I wrote ''need''. Anyway it's better using those slots for something different than leaving it alone. Wouldn't you agree? It's logical having more than one saved tactic, or plan B and C. And being more fluid in it.

[herne79]

1 minute ago, Mitja said:

Wouldn't you agree?

Nope.  Personally I never use anything more than just one slot but I quite understand why some people like to.

Everything in the game is optional, there is no "need" to use anything.  Using Mentality is optional (accepting that we have to set one as a minimum).  As are TIs, PIs, OIs, using all 3 tactic slots and in match shouts.  We can use it all if we want to, especially if we want to adopt a certain tactical style, but we don't have to.

In my experience some people over complicate the game, believing they have to use all manner of instructions and strategies in order to achieve their goals.  The truth couldn't be further removed.

[Mitja]

3 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Nope.  Personally I never use anything more than just one slot but I quite understand why some people like to.

Everything in the game is optional, there is no "need" to use anything.  Using Mentality is optional (accepting that we have to set one as a minimum).  As are TIs, PIs, OIs, using all 3 tactic slots and in match shouts.  We can use it all if we want to, especially if we want to adopt a certain tactical style, but we don't have to

I'm surprised with what you wrote, but hey. I just like to play in a way AI does, it also limits many strange things in ME. But I don't understand what you mean with using mentality is optinal. Why it is there then? I understand you can play whatever way you want but what you wrote makes little sense to me. 

[Mitja]

13 minutes ago, herne79 said:

In my experience some people over complicate the game, believing they have to use all manner of instructions and strategies in order to achieve their goals.  The truth couldn't be further removed.

I guess devs wouldn't agree here I mean you can play without anything but why having different styles then?

[herne79]

3 minutes ago, Mitja said:

But I don't understand what you mean with using mentality is optinal.

You don't have to keep changing it.  You can if you want to or if there is a specific need,

3 minutes ago, Mitja said:

I just like to play in a way AI does

You keep mentioning how the AI plays.  How do you know how the AI plays?  SI don't give out that information, nor is it available in game.

1 minute ago, Mitja said:

but why having different styles then?

Because some people like to use different tactical styles.  It's optional, personal choice and entirely up to us if we want to or not.  We have the tools available if we want to use them.

[kiwityke1983]

On 04/12/2019 at 19:25, Weller1980 said:

Any feedback on the improvements made with through ball decisions in the final 1/3? Not had a chance to play yet.

I've seen some cracking through ball since the update. Only issue is 9 times out of 10 the striker misses. Its a moment of sheer joy seeing a glorious passing move and player movement ruined by a striker being closer to hitting the corner flag than the back of the net. 

 

32 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Nope.  Personally I never use anything more than just one slot but I quite understand why some people like to.

Everything in the game is optional, there is no "need" to use anything.  Using Mentality is optional (accepting that we have to set one as a minimum).  As are TIs, PIs, OIs, using all 3 tactic slots and in match shouts.  We can use it all if we want to, especially if we want to adopt a certain tactical style, but we don't have to.

In my experience some people over complicate the game, believing they have to use all manner of instructions and strategies in order to achieve their goals.  The truth couldn't be further removed.

The game doesn't help in this respect by having the assman constantly nag you that you should have 3 support players on a positive mentality or you've changed from your tactical style (if you use the default ones). Nor that the default styles have loads of options ticked as default etc.

A lot of which I'd argue are rather redundant as you can achieve similar styles via player-roles and about half the boxes ticked. 

Nearly everything in the base game would suggest to a newcomer you should tick all the boxes. 

[herne79]

2 minutes ago, kiwityke1983 said:

The game doesn't help in this respect by having the assman constantly nag you that you should have 3 support players on a positive mentality or you've changed from your tactical style (if you use the default ones). Nor that the default styles have loads of options ticked as default etc.

A lot of which I'd argue are rather redundant as you can achieve similar styles via player-roles and about half the boxes ticked. 

Nearly everything in the base game would suggest to a newcomer you should tick all the boxes. 

I completely agree.

[Champfan10]

Here's mine for Bolton, currently top of the Prem after beating Liverpool 3-0 in our second season in the top division. Finished 5th last season, losing out on Champions League on goal difference.  The only PI are shoot less often for all apart from Pellegri, Direct passing for the Libero & our wingbacks mark the opponents wingers.

We don't concede many goals or chances despite having less possession than the opponents often (our 46% average is 14th in the league this year), we are top with 7 wins out of 8 and 14 goals to 2 conceded.

If there's one thing I'd like then its for my striker to score more goals, but not at the cost of success.

[f.zaarour]

I tried using my own style of tactic but i just cant bring my own thinking of play into the game. Could be my bad as i might not understand some clicks on the tactic in the correct way to make it work. And also in this case you should use a own training schedule. So at the end i just use gegenpress OP tactic, cuz its effective and you have a training schedule for it. its not more a challenge but yeah at the end i want quick results lol. 

Im a player who likes quick combination position football, the other tactics were not that great for me in some way, even the tiki taka. So i play 4123 and use gegenpress tactic. Away games, put it on cautious or even defensive. 

Any tips would be welcome to help me out on trying a own tactic in the right way. 

[SpS_Zen]

Il y a 2 heures, f.zaarour a dit :

I tried using my own style of tactic but i just cant bring my own thinking of play into the game. Could be my bad as i might not understand some clicks on the tactic in the correct way to make it work. And also in this case you should use a own training schedule. So at the end i just use gegenpress OP tactic, cuz its effective and you have a training schedule for it. its not more a challenge but yeah at the end i want quick results lol. 

Im a player who likes quick combination position football, the other tactics were not that great for me in some way, even the tiki taka. So i play 4123 and use gegenpress tactic. Away games, put it on cautious or even defensive. 

Any tips would be welcome to help me out on trying a own tactic in the right way. 

Dont hesitate to try things. It is by experimenting you will find a working tactic. Usually you want to identify what is the strong areas of your teams.  For example, i currently manage a team with fast players, but weak mental/technique attributes. I'm using their speed to quickly counter attack, with direct passes and faster rythm.

[pats]

4 hours ago, SpS_Zen said:

Dont hesitate to try things. It is by experimenting you will find a working tactic. Usually you want to identify what is the strong areas of your teams.  For example, i currently manage a team with fast players, but weak mental/technique attributes. I'm using their speed to quickly counter attack, with direct passes and faster rythm.

Completely agree with try new things parts. I keep repeating this here from time to time that the most fun part of FM for me is getting my inner manager out. This means trying my own tactics and squad building. If you just want to break the game, it's actually very easy to do. Just download an OP tactics and search for the list of wonderkids and you are a God in the game. We humans will always have an edge against the AI unless it's coded to cheat which isn't the case with FM.

[pats]

12 hours ago, kiwityke1983 said:

The game doesn't help in this respect by having the assman constantly nag you that you should have 3 support players on a positive mentality or you've changed from your tactical style (if you use the default ones). Nor that the default styles have loads of options ticked as default etc.

A lot of which I'd argue are rather redundant as you can achieve similar styles via player-roles and about half the boxes ticked. 

Nearly everything in the base game would suggest to a newcomer you should tick all the boxes. 

Agree. I always set the pre-match advice turned off for this reason. The tactical advice doesn't take into account your own style of play, your position in the table, opposition etc.. It feels like it is always reading from a template. Nothing wrong with that mind you but it's not very dynamic or intelligent enough imo.

[pats]

 

[thejay]

My post has gained a lot of traction , I didnt really read all the answers because I was busy fiddling with the game.

Also the new patch changed a lot of things, some for the better some are much worse, some are all the same.

I will try to catch up on the responses 

[CaptainPlanet]

Ross - 4-2-3-1.fmf