ZaZ said: I don't wanna argue since I can't change the way you think, but it seems like you think this is a matter between USA and Russia. There seems to be a misconception that EU needs USA to protect them, but in reality, USA gets more from NATO than the other way around. You should check what NATO really is and when it can be activated. It's not an alliance to protect the world peace as some people might think, but simply a pact of mutual defence.
Anyway, I won't argue with you about the war, I'll just say I disagree with your points and keep it like that.
At least this war is useful to show how incompetent is the military of Russia and how outdated is their technology. They might have a handful of top grade equipment, but not enough to be a threat to anyone. Expand
I didn't say this was a matter between the USA and Russia. I'm saying the USA is partly responsible for the situation (although of course Putin is the guilty one here). The USA instigated a coup in 2014 and has been encouraging Ukraine to turn away from Russia and look towards the EU and the West. This is a matter between Russia and Ukraine, and the ones paying the price of course are the Ukrainian people. NATO is a mutual defence pact against the USSR. Now that the USSR is gone and that Russia has a GNP smaller than that of Texas, there is no need for NATO anymore. Like you said, their army is no longer a threat to us, but we still have to be careful because they have many nuclear weapons. Don't forget, also, that it is in the USA's interest to create tensions between the EU and Russia. That way, they profit economically.
The Russian army might be incompetent, but it is still powerful. You seem to be very anti-Russian and looking to dismsiss them in any way possible, you are not being objective here. Of course it is not strong enough to attack the EU or the USA, but it is powerful enough to crush Ukraine and take whatever territories they want. They know the West is going to let them take over Ukraine, or at least the East of Ukraine. And by giving weapons to Ukraine, without helping them with actual soldiers, we are encouraging the massacre that is happening. Ukrainians are very brave, but they are going to get massacred if things continue like this.
Your view about the situation is the 'conventional' one, fed to us by mainstream media, by the USA and the EU. But in diplomacy, you have to make an effort to see things from your 'opponent's' perspective too. And if you listen to many experts on Russia and Ukraine, diplomats and geopoliticians, they are saying what I am saying.
You compared Putin to Hitler, and I disagree. Hitler wanted to take over the world and committed a genocide. Putin has not tried to do either of those things. He is not stupid or crazy, like you seem to think, he knows full well that he will never be able to invade the EU or even recreate the Soviet Union. But he does want to recreate a Great Russia, yes, and that involves taking back part of Ukraine, and also Belarus, so that the population of Russia reaches a critical point, which is 200 million people. Right now it has 'only' 144 million, with a huge territory and small population density. He wants more population, and I am pretty sure he will be happy with 200 million. And we are going to let him do that.
ZaZ said: That's bullshit. Ukraine joining a defensive alliance is not enough reason for Putin to order a genocide. The only countries that voted in favour of Russia were Eritrea, North Korea, Belarus and Syria. All rest of the world condemned the attack (except some that abstained, like China and Venezuela), and you can bet they don't take their information from Twitter or normal media, all of them have intelligence services and embassies to help make decisions. Expand
I'm sorry but you brush aside some very good points made by Madundwa by saying 'that's bullshit' and then you go on to say absolutely ridiculous things like Putin is ordering a genocide and he is like Hitler. You should stick to making tactics, you are very good at that, but geopolitics and history are not your forte, clearly.
No-one is defending Putin. He is WRONG and he needs to stop this offensive immediately. I agree with you that he is a corrupt dictator, but he is also a patriot, and he is, in his eyes, defending his country from aggression. Ukraine is also a corrupt government, you know... You are seeing things in black or white, when things are much more complex than that. What do you have to say about the Ukrainian government bombing the Donbass for the past 8 years, killing 13,000 people, for example? What do you have to say about NATO's expansion to the East of Europe? You expect Putin to just sit there quietly and say nothing, and just accept that the USA put more and more weapons and soldiers all around Russia? Do you think the USA would accept having weapons and soldiers placed by China or Russia in Canada, Mexico and Cuba? Of course not, we saw what happened the last time!
The West has some responsibility in this conflict too. Putin has been ostracised and humiliated by the West for the past 20 years, and he has had enough! All he wants is Ukraine to stay neutral, like Finland, for example. He has been asking for this for years and years, and he was never given a straight answer. He was even told to 'piss off' and 'mind his own business' by a EU official when he traveled to Brussels to ask why the EU was making an economic deal with Ukraine that was going to hurt Russia, without involving Russia in the negociations. That is unaccceptable! We need to stop this war immediately by reassuring Putin that Ukraine will never join NATO. But thanks to people like you, we are escalating the conflict, risking nuclear war, damaging relations with Russia and pushing them into the arms of China, and the big losers will be EU countries. Plus, we will have an alliance between 2 big nuclear powers (Russia and China), which will make the world even more dangerous. Well done! Great outcome for us!
CBP87 said: They've done quite a bit of research and believe they've found a better way to test which will give the community more accurate results Expand
Thanks CBP87! So it's what I thought. They believe they have found a better way to test, but it hasn"t been proven yet? For example, we don't know for sure that the tactic that is currently top with a 5.8 rating will yield better results than the one that was top of the 'old' table with a 6.0 rating? Am I right?
I'm sorry if this is a dumb question, but I'm not sure I understand... Does this new way of testing tactics give a more accurate rating than before, or is it just a different way of evaluating the tactic, without necessarily being more accurate?
Mark said: I have had a bit of a look at @Eric results to try and see if there are any patterns. I have excluded the tactics where he hasn't tested for a full season. I have also started testing them in my lower league tests. Here are the results from @Eric Tests.
I have focused on the teams that have either made 2 points per game or had a goal difference of over one goal per game.
I hope this helps someone Expand
I'm really surprised to see Cerber's tactic doing better than Zaz's, because at the beginning of my game I was using Cerber's tactic and my results were really mixed, and quite bad away from home, and when I switched to Zaz's tactic, my results improved dramatically, I won the French cup and reached the final of the Europa League (with Marseille in Ligue 1). I lost in the final 3-0 against Lazio. I only finished 4th in the league though, but Lyon and Monaco are very strong teams. And Paris of course, they didn't lose a single match all season, and I think only drew 3...
OK thanks. I chose to ask here because I prefer to receive an answer from someone experienced like you than any stranger who might give me bad advice.
But when you have a tired player before a match, do you put him on the bench and then maybe make him come on during the match, or do you not select him at all? I guess my question is, do you prefer to select a 17 year old from your junior squad even if he is far from first team level, if he is fresh, or you will put on the bench a tired but first team level player?
I have a question regarding first team selection. What is your strategy generally regarding player selection of 'tired' players? When a player is tired, do you put him on the bench and start his substitute (who should be around the same quality as him, maybe just a bit worse) but if his replacement gets tired during the match, you make your tired player come on in the second half, do you start your tired player anyway (for example if he is tired but 'good' or 'excellent' condition), or do you not even put him on the bench, and let him rest completely until he is match fit for the following match?
ZaZ said: For your first question, changing player positions will have a negative impact in the tactic. Some changes are less bad, while others will make this tactic way worse. If you want to change formation, I would rather recommend you to filter a tactic in that formation from the table, since tactics are usually optimized to a specific shape.
About your second question, there is no much difference between natura and accomplished, but anything below that is not worth using yet. Train them to the new position and maybe let them play as subs, and they should become accomplished in around six months (from completely untrained).
About your last question, keeping the tactic instructions is more important than the quality of your player. I mean, I don't even pay much attention to most stats, I usually only look at pace, acceleration, agility and dribbling (for attacking players) or jumping reach (for defending players), since those are the attributes that impact the most on performance. Expand
Thank you very much for your quick reply!! So I'm guessing the same goes for team instructions? For example, if you did not turn on 'play for set pieces' in your tactic, but my assistant tells me my squad has very good set piece takers, I still should not turn on 'play for set pieces', and just trust your tactic 100%?
Hi, I have some questions. Is it really important to keep this formation for the tactic to work, or can I put the same team instructions on a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3, for example, if I prefer those formations? Will the tactic lose a lot of its effectiveness, or will it still be successful?
Same with player roles and instructions. For example, if I put a good, but not great player who is natural in the SS-At role, will he be better than a great player who is only accomplished or competent in that role?
And if, in the player instructions, you tell a player for example to "run with ball often", but my player is bad at running with ball (10 or less), is it important to keep the instruction that you added, or should I take it off for that player? (in other words, what is more important for the effectiveness of the tactic, the capability of the player for that instruction, or the instruction itself?)
Wow, this tactic looks amazing... Who is this TFF guy? And does anyone know how these people develop their tactics? I mean how do you come up with the idea of putting wingers AND wing backs? That seems crazy. And how do you make it work?
Anyway, I won't argue with you about the war, I'll just say I disagree with your points and keep it like that.
At least this war is useful to show how incompetent is the military of Russia and how outdated is their technology. They might have a handful of top grade equipment, but not enough to be a threat to anyone.
I didn't say this was a matter between the USA and Russia. I'm saying the USA is partly responsible for the situation (although of course Putin is the guilty one here). The USA instigated a coup in 2014 and has been encouraging Ukraine to turn away from Russia and look towards the EU and the West. This is a matter between Russia and Ukraine, and the ones paying the price of course are the Ukrainian people. NATO is a mutual defence pact against the USSR. Now that the USSR is gone and that Russia has a GNP smaller than that of Texas, there is no need for NATO anymore. Like you said, their army is no longer a threat to us, but we still have to be careful because they have many nuclear weapons. Don't forget, also, that it is in the USA's interest to create tensions between the EU and Russia. That way, they profit economically.
The Russian army might be incompetent, but it is still powerful. You seem to be very anti-Russian and looking to dismsiss them in any way possible, you are not being objective here. Of course it is not strong enough to attack the EU or the USA, but it is powerful enough to crush Ukraine and take whatever territories they want. They know the West is going to let them take over Ukraine, or at least the East of Ukraine. And by giving weapons to Ukraine, without helping them with actual soldiers, we are encouraging the massacre that is happening. Ukrainians are very brave, but they are going to get massacred if things continue like this.
Your view about the situation is the 'conventional' one, fed to us by mainstream media, by the USA and the EU. But in diplomacy, you have to make an effort to see things from your 'opponent's' perspective too. And if you listen to many experts on Russia and Ukraine, diplomats and geopoliticians, they are saying what I am saying.
You compared Putin to Hitler, and I disagree. Hitler wanted to take over the world and committed a genocide. Putin has not tried to do either of those things. He is not stupid or crazy, like you seem to think, he knows full well that he will never be able to invade the EU or even recreate the Soviet Union. But he does want to recreate a Great Russia, yes, and that involves taking back part of Ukraine, and also Belarus, so that the population of Russia reaches a critical point, which is 200 million people. Right now it has 'only' 144 million, with a huge territory and small population density. He wants more population, and I am pretty sure he will be happy with 200 million. And we are going to let him do that.
I'm sorry but you brush aside some very good points made by Madundwa by saying 'that's bullshit' and then you go on to say absolutely ridiculous things like Putin is ordering a genocide and he is like Hitler. You should stick to making tactics, you are very good at that, but geopolitics and history are not your forte, clearly.
No-one is defending Putin. He is WRONG and he needs to stop this offensive immediately. I agree with you that he is a corrupt dictator, but he is also a patriot, and he is, in his eyes, defending his country from aggression. Ukraine is also a corrupt government, you know... You are seeing things in black or white, when things are much more complex than that. What do you have to say about the Ukrainian government bombing the Donbass for the past 8 years, killing 13,000 people, for example? What do you have to say about NATO's expansion to the East of Europe? You expect Putin to just sit there quietly and say nothing, and just accept that the USA put more and more weapons and soldiers all around Russia? Do you think the USA would accept having weapons and soldiers placed by China or Russia in Canada, Mexico and Cuba? Of course not, we saw what happened the last time!
The West has some responsibility in this conflict too. Putin has been ostracised and humiliated by the West for the past 20 years, and he has had enough! All he wants is Ukraine to stay neutral, like Finland, for example. He has been asking for this for years and years, and he was never given a straight answer. He was even told to 'piss off' and 'mind his own business' by a EU official when he traveled to Brussels to ask why the EU was making an economic deal with Ukraine that was going to hurt Russia, without involving Russia in the negociations. That is unaccceptable! We need to stop this war immediately by reassuring Putin that Ukraine will never join NATO. But thanks to people like you, we are escalating the conflict, risking nuclear war, damaging relations with Russia and pushing them into the arms of China, and the big losers will be EU countries. Plus, we will have an alliance between 2 big nuclear powers (Russia and China), which will make the world even more dangerous. Well done! Great outcome for us!
Thanks CBP87! So it's what I thought. They believe they have found a better way to test, but it hasn"t been proven yet? For example, we don't know for sure that the tactic that is currently top with a 5.8 rating will yield better results than the one that was top of the 'old' table with a 6.0 rating? Am I right?
Oh, because you think I haven't already? thanks for deliberately not trying to help me!
I have focused on the teams that have either made 2 points per game or had a goal difference of over one goal per game.
I hope this helps someone
I'm really surprised to see Cerber's tactic doing better than Zaz's, because at the beginning of my game I was using Cerber's tactic and my results were really mixed, and quite bad away from home, and when I switched to Zaz's tactic, my results improved dramatically, I won the French cup and reached the final of the Europa League (with Marseille in Ligue 1). I lost in the final 3-0 against Lazio. I only finished 4th in the league though, but Lyon and Monaco are very strong teams. And Paris of course, they didn't lose a single match all season, and I think only drew 3...
But when you have a tired player before a match, do you put him on the bench and then maybe make him come on during the match, or do you not select him at all? I guess my question is, do you prefer to select a 17 year old from your junior squad even if he is far from first team level, if he is fresh, or you will put on the bench a tired but first team level player?
About your second question, there is no much difference between natura and accomplished, but anything below that is not worth using yet. Train them to the new position and maybe let them play as subs, and they should become accomplished in around six months (from completely untrained).
About your last question, keeping the tactic instructions is more important than the quality of your player. I mean, I don't even pay much attention to most stats, I usually only look at pace, acceleration, agility and dribbling (for attacking players) or jumping reach (for defending players), since those are the attributes that impact the most on performance.
Thank you very much for your quick reply!! So I'm guessing the same goes for team instructions? For example, if you did not turn on 'play for set pieces' in your tactic, but my assistant tells me my squad has very good set piece takers, I still should not turn on 'play for set pieces', and just trust your tactic 100%?
Same with player roles and instructions. For example, if I put a good, but not great player who is natural in the SS-At role, will he be better than a great player who is only accomplished or competent in that role?
And if, in the player instructions, you tell a player for example to "run with ball often", but my player is bad at running with ball (10 or less), is it important to keep the instruction that you added, or should I take it off for that player? (in other words, what is more important for the effectiveness of the tactic, the capability of the player for that instruction, or the instruction itself?)
I hope I was clear!
https://www.screencast.com/t/TxGxuwt4KjBu
https://www.screencast.com/t/q6E4mlEvq
https://www.screencast.com/t/UKinHh6Z
I downloaded a tactic designed by RickyScout back when I was playing FM2018, and had amazing results with it. I would like it to be tested for FM2020.
For me it has worked fairly well so far, with 12 wins in 15 games.
Thanks a lot.