After perusing the tactics tables, it appears that essentially every single tactic uses the same instructions, and there are common threads when it comes to position designations.
For example, almost every tactic employs narrow formation, overlapping outside, pass into space, shorter passing, highest tempo, run at defense, counter-press, counter, max pressing, highest line & press, get stuck in, invite crosses, etc.
As for positions, every 4ATB formation has BPDs flanked by FB(a)s. 3ATB formations have BPDs with maybe a Libero in the middle flanked by WB(a)s. Defensive Midfielders are DM(s) unless you don't have any AMCs, in which case they are VOL(a). CMs are CM(s), occasionally CM(a). 10s are AM. Wingers are always IF. Sole strikers are AF(a). 2 or 3 strikers are PF(s) or AF(a).
I get that some of this is just good tactic building (not using WBs if you already have width from attackers, not having conflicting/overlapping playmakers, valuing defenders that can create and spearhead the attack, consistent philosophy out of possession, etc), but I'm wondering if there are decent tactics out there that use a different mindset. Something more patient in buildup and possession-based, even if it still presses hard when out of possession? It just all feels a little bland when the formations might change but the core philosophy is the exact same for every tactic rated anything above 'OK'. Separately, can 'OK' tactics be workable in-game?
For example, almost every tactic employs narrow formation, overlapping outside, pass into space, shorter passing, highest tempo, run at defense, counter-press, counter, max pressing, highest line & press, get stuck in, invite crosses, etc.
As for positions, every 4ATB formation has BPDs flanked by FB(a)s. 3ATB formations have BPDs with maybe a Libero in the middle flanked by WB(a)s. Defensive Midfielders are DM(s) unless you don't have any AMCs, in which case they are VOL(a). CMs are CM(s), occasionally CM(a). 10s are AM. Wingers are always IF. Sole strikers are AF(a). 2 or 3 strikers are PF(s) or AF(a).
I get that some of this is just good tactic building (not using WBs if you already have width from attackers, not having conflicting/overlapping playmakers, valuing defenders that can create and spearhead the attack, consistent philosophy out of possession, etc), but I'm wondering if there are decent tactics out there that use a different mindset. Something more patient in buildup and possession-based, even if it still presses hard when out of possession? It just all feels a little bland when the formations might change but the core philosophy is the exact same for every tactic rated anything above 'OK'. Separately, can 'OK' tactics be workable in-game?