magicnut said: At minimum 3 instructions different and there might very well be differences to individual instructions although formation and roles look simular.

Let's hope those 3 instructions will do magic and help this to get more than 4.7 rating :)
magicnut said: Hello there lads I bestow this Knapp's masterpiece which has the highest point tally of all the knapp tactics tested a whopping 110pts. Surely this might be a big hit in our leaderboards..

Source :

isn't it the same tactic?
KOniGun said: Hi, During the beta I used this tactic of Knap, it worked really well, possible to test it on the final version of the game?
thank you very much for the enormous work, already operational from the release of the game !!! WELL DONE

I think it'd better to test this version becasue it's most recent -
Downloaded : 8 times
Uploaded : 2 days ago
@Darkness thanks... I'll take a look.
Olympique de Marseille - predicted to finish 4th

This tactic left no chance for PSG, I made quadruple, won everything. :devil:

In the domestic league I managed to get 103 points.

In the Champions League final I defeated Man Utd 4 - 2

Great work with the tactic, Zealot. Thank you.

Champions League Final vs Man Utd

With Liverpool it's like a walk in the park

Salah and Mane are deadly :devil:

runitout said: I did a bunch of PPM testing for strikers one time, and I thought I'd share my results. This is a little long, so tl;dr almost nothing mattered. Sorry to disappoint. Just a disclaimer -- I only did the test with one striker, and it's possible that the PPMs interact with player traits. As I'll explain, if there is such an interaction, I believe it had no effect on my test.

So I had a newgen striker that was amazing, Michael Baroni. Very composed, very fast, good movement. Basically he was good at just about everything, maybe CA 180 or even greater. But he wasn't scoring like I thought he should. It was the usual story -- lots of one-on-ones fired right into the keeper. After reading all the manuals and forums, I thought he would do well with "places shots," and trained him for that. Afterwards, I was second guessing that decision, so hence the motivation for my test.

What I did was fire up a new save in Ligue 1, which has 20 teams. I created 20 clones of Michael Baroni, and put one on every team in Ligue 1. (As an aside, it was interesting to see the salary that the game gave to each clone. It ranged from $22mm/yr for PSG down to $1mm/yr for the poor teams.)  I then randomly assigned finishing and movement traits to each clone. I tried four finishing traits -- places shots, shoots with power, lobs keeper, and rounds keeper. I also interacted those with five other traits for movement: no movement trait, beats offside trap, moves into channels, runs with ball often. I was also curious about the "curls ball" trait, so I tried that too. So that's 20 possible combinations: 4 finishing X 5 other traits (4 movement +curls ball). If I had it to do over again, I would have had one test Baroni with no finishing trait, rather than one Baroni with no movement trait. But "lobs keeper" I figured would be basically useless, so would serve as a baseline for comparison for the other finishing traits.

I then simulated the same season four times, rotating which Baroni gets which trait so that it wasn't always a crappy team getting the "shoots with power" trait or whatever. So if you're counting, that's 80 Baroni seasons, with 20 for each finishing trait. I was the Amiens coach, but on vacation mode. The rest I left to the AI. Baroni was good enough to be the first-choice starter on all teams, including PSG. In the first season, I made the mistake of not adjusting injury susceptibility -- it was around 13 or so, and injuries therefore added some noise to the simulation. In subsequent simulations, I set it to 1 for all the Baronis. It was surprising how much time was lost to injury even for the proneness = 1 Baronis: league games missed for the average injury-proned Baroni was 6.5, while for the average non-injury proned Baroni it was 3.68.

On to the results. The outcome variable was goals/90 minutes. Here are the means across the finishing traits:
Places: 0.45
Power: 0.45
Rounds: 0.48
Lobs: 0.49

If you are worried that the distribution of g90 is skewed, here are the medians:
Places: 0.44
Power: 0.47
Rounds: 0.49
Lobs: 0.47

Long story short, there is almost no difference, nowhere near statistically significant, either taken individually (T-test) or collectively (F-test). I then tested a few other hypotheses that I had, and nothing mattered. For instance, I thought that a player on a good team might face more bunkering and would have fewer one-on-ones. So I looked for whether the impact of the trait differed by media prediction. No dice.

What about movement (and curls ball)? Again, here is average g90:
No trait: 0.42
Beats offside trap: 0.44
Moves into channels: 0.53
Runs with ball: 0.48
Curls ball: 0.48

Not exactly inspiring, but "moves into channels" is in fact statistically significant compared to having no movement traits at all. This is the only trait that makes a difference statistically. I mentioned earlier that I dismissed that the PPMs was interacting with attributes. It's possible that such interactions matter, I do not dispute that. But this is a striker who is good at everything, so such interactions are unlikely to matter for this particular exercise.

Need that someone tested it in FM21 :D
WOW! Here are my first 10 matches in the league with Leicester

I think it's been tested tested already -
BJT said: Hi mate - for that reason :) I like to play a realistic style of football to watch on the pitch without such exploitation. I'd only ever use them in a Pulis tactic :)

Ok, I see... makes sense :)
@BJT Hi, why don't you use Long Throw-ins in your tactics? They are much more effectite than Short Throw-ins and gives a lot of goals... it's kinda cheat... I see that all the tactics top tactics use Long Throw-ins :)
BJT said: I rekon Team A has Phil Jones and Chris Smalling at the back ;)

How dare you? :)

I've tried it on my young striker and it worked like a charm.

Thank you! :thup:
@Tsubasa thanks, pal.

I wonder how the "Ability" / "Potential" star rating is calculated... does it have any relation with CA(Currect Ability) and PA(Potential Ability) or it's a different thing?

I'd appreciate if someone could clear that for me.

Ok, thanks.
@Egraam Hi, did you use any OIs or set the set pices taker?
Thank you, Erick. Great help.