retired_volleyball-93

the main problem with the "global setting" is that it's what the AI seems to use. So, if one wants to "exploit" the tactical AI setup to one's advantage, by not using global settings you'll be able to find out the opponent's tactical weaknesses. By using global settings, you make your team too much like your AI opponent, not to mention my suspicion that it's exactly what the AI expects you to do and has been pre-programmed to deal with it, whereas dealing with the numerous combinations of possible slider positioning is much more difficult for the AI enemy.

Having said that, I realise it can be frustrating dealing with the sliders before each and every game (which I find necessary to be consistently succesfull) and taking a global stance is an easy solution. I have yet to find success with global settings and because I play with weak teams like Cambridge City and the like I can never rely on player quality.

retired_rolando.perez

I decided to quote this portion of your reply because it epitomizes everything wrong with using individual mentalities. The idea of 'over-complicating' things glows from the scenario you have offered here. If in real life you play a 4-4-2, with attacking wingers, and this works, you do not modify this "each and every game". In fact, if real life was a season on FM, most managers probably wouldn't touch the individual settings for most of the season - they would only alter things when individuals weren't doing something properly. What would change every game or so is team instructions. You might tell the team to be more defensive, which translates to lowering the team mentality, or you might tell an individual or two to be more attacking or whatever, which tranlates to the individual instructions, but I don't think you would ever find a time to change every players' instuctions before each game.

And, with regards to out-witting the AI, you would do this as a team, and maybe have one or two individuals highlighted for their own task to keep the opposition on their toes. The AI would probably waltz through a team that is constantly in transition tactically, but if they expect the whole team to play one way, but you slyly change just one player to do something differently, you could catch them unawares and expose their weaknesses in this way. For example, let's say I play a side with a poor leftback. Now, I can lure them into thinking that they are in the driving seat - they will expect the team to play the same way it has all season. And I don't want them to think otherwise. Instead, I might just notch up my rightsided midfielder's mentality, or FWRs or whatever, the point is despite the team playing the same game, I can still expose weaknesses.


I guess what I'm trying to say that individual instructions are not the tactical enemy, they are in fact the tactical weapon when used in moderation. If the opposition knows you shuffle your tactical deck every week, it will not know what to expect so will likely start the game defensively until it knows where your weaknesses are. If however you keep the same tactic bar subtle changes, you can far more sneakily outwit your opponent and this in turn will expose a weakness far more effectively. The idea is not to take a risk by trying to expose ALL the opposition weaknesses by changing ALL instuctions, but instead exposing just a couple so the AI don't realise there is a problem until the ball is in the back of the net.

retired_rjw13838

Altough it sounds sensible, I'd like to know whether this is just a theory of yours, or whether you really tested it

Im currently using a 4-3-3 formation (three flat rows, no arrows, three central strikers). This tactic literally consists of a defence, a midfield and an attack. Defenders play defensively, attackers first notch attack and midfield right in the middle. Same with creative freedom and passing (direct at the back, short up front, mixed in the middle).

Not completely universal settings, but grouped instead in the probably most logical (simple) way

retired_mgavlick

As always, a sensible alternate approach and a great level of tactical discussion. I can't contribute to this as yet, but I hope it leads to some great things.

retired_wrangler

nice post neon. i like the idea of the whole team playing as a unit with 1 player doing something different to unsettle the oposition. irl this is often the case and that 1 player is the difference between the teams. perhaps that can be utilised with free role and no pressing for that particular player while the rest do all the donkey work. this is something i have not tried yet but my usual 5 attack 5 defend tactics are proving very inconsistent in fm2007. ill do some testing

retired_rjw13838

When can we expect this follow up? Dont just let us hang here drying

retired_katysdodd

I would like to bump this thread. I think it is a very useful and helpful idea on how to build your team, without over-complicating things with too many instructions.

I often think this is over-looked in favour of complicated individual instructions. Personally, I always favour having the majority of my players on team settings. This allows me to tweak things more easily during a game, which I think is the best time to be changing things, rather than trying to set up the perfect tactic before a game, I think it is more beneficial to change things DURING the game to get an advange.

retired_dehaven

Good stuff Neon, it sounds very promising what you are saying, and thank you for sharing your visions of the perfect 'Team'.

Looking forward to hearing the rest.

I have always been one for using individual instructions as opposed to team. I have had great success, but also great failures, mainly when injuries and suspensions, as lesser players seem to struggle with the roles assigned.

Going to test your theory when I start a new game.

Keep us informed as much as possible, and thanks again for the time you put in :thup:

retired_sexylady218

I've been having great success recently with a similar tactic. I group the 4 defenders as a unit and issue them with similar defensive tactics. I then use team instructions for the midfield and attack as I find this more effective when changing tactics within a match. If you want to play more attacking then the defensive unit will still hold tight. I've found it gives you a mean defence (conceeded 12 in 24 games with Bournemouth).

retired_danig6484

Nice one Neonlights, and full of great ideas about how to design tactics.

I especially like your description of players with same settings defining a team-wide 'zone' that moves together, allowing more options as the team moves together (mentality, closing down, cf, passing style all seem relevant).

This zone is really defined in time, rather than space, in a certain sense: Everyone who's told to react in the same way to a change in posession or movement up the pitch, will react as a unit. Whereas, if players have differing mentalities (or other settings), they will react differently and potentially off-tempo to the rest of the team (earlier break, or later).

The only place I wonder about is in high closing-down strategies. Here, its useful to pair players with complementary settings, rather than identical: One striker closes down, the other moves for the layoff. One CD tackles the onrushing striker, the other lays back, etc..

Pressing strategies seem to have a hard time getting translated onto the FM pitch anyways (at least in my experience: players press the other time wide, but not always back, or into trouble. Players close down without regard to each other, leading to 3 strikers chasing the DMC.......duh!). The most effective measure to balance these tendencies is to pair/mirror the pressing partners who would otherwise both close down in the same instant in some cases (attacker is perpendicular to them).

I do think you're genearlly right though in this kind of re-evaluation.