NairaGatsby said: Hi could you advise who to sub in the event of a red card? Expand
Based on the current engine features, one MEZ will be removed and the wing combination will be changed to DWS（Press forward） +IWBS（Press forward），That should be fine.
Thanks to the management for helping to delete the uploaded duplicate tactics, now continue to use 4141 formation to verify the effect of WBS+IWS combination, normally it is difficult to get a good score of 4141 formation, see if the ceiling can be raised as expected.
It is a little strange that the combination of duties with left and right symmetry is neither better overlap nor underlap, but better combination of both. So I'm going to change the left VOLS to DMS based on that to make it a little bit more reasonable, and let's see what happens.
Congratulations, traditional 433 a new record, really is not easy. While some formations can easily score big points with different combinations of duties and different ways of attacking, the traditional 4-3-3 system does too much work and is still playing catch-up. Come on, hope to see the traditional 433 enter the top ranks.
424 is a really good formation for the current engine, it has been studied to the extreme, and there are many almost duplicate works. I did a test where I used the regular IFS+WBS+VOLS combination, which combined reduced shots and risky passes to create different offensive panel Settings with the same effect. In my limited testing, there were four different Settings and it was hard to tell which was better. These four tactics are just different ways of attacking, and with a bit of luck, I think they'll be able to compete in 1,200 games. Of course, it's better to be able to compete in 4,000 games, so there's less error. I'll be interested to see how that turns out. I'll make my own prediction. They should both be 51 points or 52 points. （The difference of the 4 tactics can be seen through the names of tactics, switching between overlap and underlap, or choosing none at all.）
424 is a really good formation for the current engine, it has been studied to the extreme, and there are many almost duplicate works. I did a test where I used the regular IFS+WBS+VOLS combination, which combined reduced shots and risky passes to create different offensive panel Settings with the same effect. In my limited testing, there were four different Settings and it was hard to tell which was better. These four tactics are just different ways of attacking, and with a bit of luck, I think they'll be able to compete in 1,200 games. Of course, it's better to be able to compete in 4,000 games, so there's less error. I'll be interested to see how that turns out. I'll make my own prediction. They should both be 51 points or 52 points. （The difference of the 4 tactics can be seen through the names of tactics, switching between overlap and underlap, or choosing none at all.）
424 is a really good formation for the current engine, it has been studied to the extreme, and there are many almost duplicate works. I did a test where I used the regular IFS+WBS+VOLS combination, which combined reduced shots and risky passes to create different offensive panel Settings with the same effect. In my limited testing, there were four different Settings and it was hard to tell which was better. These four tactics are just different ways of attacking, and with a bit of luck, I think they'll be able to compete in 1,200 games. Of course, it's better to be able to compete in 4,000 games, so there's less error. I'll be interested to see how that turns out. I'll make my own prediction. They should both be 51 points or 52 points. （The difference of the 4 tactics can be seen through the names of tactics, switching between overlap and underlap, or choosing none at all.）
424 is a really good formation for the current engine, it has been studied to the extreme, and there are many almost duplicate works. I did a test where I used the regular IFS+WBS+VOLS combination, which combined reduced shots and risky passes to create different offensive panel Settings with the same effect. In my limited testing, there were four different Settings and it was hard to tell which was better. These four tactics are just different ways of attacking, and with a bit of luck, I think they'll be able to compete in 1,200 games. Of course, it's better to be able to compete in 4,000 games, so there's less error. I'll be interested to see how that turns out. I'll make my own prediction. They should both be 51 points or 52 points. （The difference of the 4 tactics can be seen through the names of tactics, switching between overlap and underlap, or choosing none at all.）
Change compared with Ⅰ : The forwards move to the left as a whole to balance the formation. Personal Settings have been changed and all players have been added to the adventure pass.
Based on the current engine features, one MEZ will be removed and the wing combination will be changed to DWS（Press forward） +IWBS（Press forward），That should be fine.
What is the result of an intuitive comparison？
These four tactics are just different ways of attacking, and with a bit of luck, I think they'll be able to compete in 1,200 games. Of course, it's better to be able to compete in 4,000 games, so there's less error. I'll be interested to see how that turns out. I'll make my own prediction. They should both be 51 points or 52 points.
（The difference of the 4 tactics can be seen through the names of tactics, switching between overlap and underlap, or choosing none at all.）
These four tactics are just different ways of attacking, and with a bit of luck, I think they'll be able to compete in 1,200 games. Of course, it's better to be able to compete in 4,000 games, so there's less error. I'll be interested to see how that turns out. I'll make my own prediction. They should both be 51 points or 52 points.
（The difference of the 4 tactics can be seen through the names of tactics, switching between overlap and underlap, or choosing none at all.）
These four tactics are just different ways of attacking, and with a bit of luck, I think they'll be able to compete in 1,200 games. Of course, it's better to be able to compete in 4,000 games, so there's less error. I'll be interested to see how that turns out. I'll make my own prediction. They should both be 51 points or 52 points.
（The difference of the 4 tactics can be seen through the names of tactics, switching between overlap and underlap, or choosing none at all.）
These four tactics are just different ways of attacking, and with a bit of luck, I think they'll be able to compete in 1,200 games. Of course, it's better to be able to compete in 4,000 games, so there's less error. I'll be interested to see how that turns out. I'll make my own prediction. They should both be 51 points or 52 points.
（The difference of the 4 tactics can be seen through the names of tactics, switching between overlap and underlap, or choosing none at all.）
The forwards move to the left as a whole to balance the formation.
Personal Settings have been changed and all players have been added to the adventure pass.