retired_FaultyFate

Hello,

I decided to open this thread because I feel I finally have something constructive to say . This is not the solution, but rather my general approach and I would like to have a discussion on the topic.

One of the most common approaches to the game is to use scout reports and counter AI. For example, if scout says “they play defensive”, then go attacking etc. That’s reasonable, but we need to realize that this “counter” approach works both ways. That is if I go attacking, AI goes defensive to COUNTER me. Who wins? I think it depends on a lot of factors.

Another approach – match AI. That is, for instance, if scout says “AI plays possession” and I believe I have better squad, I can match them and play similar style hoping to overplay. The outcome, again, depends on many factors.

I should tell I personally use one tactic (not tactic set), but change a few things depending on opposition and time I am willing to spend analysing next opponent. If I don’t have time (usually), I use width, def. line, and global mentality sliders only and “use counter-attack” box to make adjustments, otherwise I can change a few other things (closing down, tackling, individual instructions etc.).

The first assumption I have made is: when I play at home, it is reasonable to expect that AI will try to counter me. This game seems to have a significant home bias, so it is essential that away team will rather counter than try to dominate. Hence, if I go attacking versus defensive that will be exactly what AI wants me to do. What should I actually do? It depends whether I face better team, expect equal game, or believe my team is significantly better. In the first two cases I usually start more cautious, a little deeper def. line to prevent fast breaks, and not wide. Because in my experience if a good AI team starts counter-attacking and manages to score on break at the beginning, it is very difficult for me to come back. Then I watch game closely and try to make appropriate adjustments. If I face a team, which I think I should beat without problem, I try to find their weakest and strongest link. Say, they have not very good but fast strikers (strongest link), then pushing def. line up is risky. On the other hand, if their defs and midfielders have relatively low passing and decision stats (weakest link), so pressuring them (higher closing down) seems appropriate. Etc. The more time I have to analyse opposition, the better instruction I can give to my players. If I don’t have time (or don’t want to spend it), I simply assume that weaker team will try to catch me on break and use def. line only to adjust my usual attacking tactic.

Similarly, if I play away, I assume that AI will try to control the game in a sense that they will focus more on playing their own style than countering me. Hence I should probably counter if opposition is equal or better side. If I face a very good team, my first goal is obviously to defend, but I vary the way I do it. Say, Arsenal plays very short but quick, so I give them a chance to dominate in the middle of the field (lower closing down and def line), but park a bus in my area. I do not see a point to play quick against them (I should counter), but rather play direct and relatively slow to give my players time to set something good up. Finally, I will rather play narrow but focus passing down both flanks. Why? Because I think this way I prevent many of my passes being intercepted, yet I play compact. If I face a weaker team, I will try to match them, because I believe this way I counter them better than when I actually try to counter.

Choosing right tactic (or settings) is one part of the puzzle, but I also try to choose players that will fit best for the tactic. Say my scout says “Chelsea defense is relatively slow” (happened a couple times) yet I know they are good in air, have high positioning, anticipation and concentration stats (I don’t actually need to check it! It’s Chelsea and if their defs are slow they must be very good at something else ). So there is no point for me to use big TM and bombard their area with crossings. Hence fast STs and wingers with good dribbling and passing stats (rather than crossing), instructed run with ball often, are better option. I tend to have two different DMs and use one with better jumping-heading-anticipation stats against teams playing direct football, while the other with higher marking + decision + passing is on the pitch when I play direct.

It is not my intention to describe my decision in every possible situation, but I will be happy to discuss specific reports, as well as others’ approaches.

Summary. My decision to counter or match AI comes from two main factors: a) quality of opposition and b) home or away game. As a rule of thumb I would not try to counter the AI if playing home unless I am a complete underdog. Finally, if you want to counter and need to deviate from your usual style, make sure you use right players.

retired_hope

Good post kolobok,

Passing style and creative freedom is something that I keep fairly constant for my teams. I might change it two notches either way thoughout the course of the game, but apart from that the rest of the tactics are related to how positive you want to play.

I use only 2 tactics, a 442 and a 4141.

There isn't really a need for tactical sets in my view, even if you want to use individual instructions.