It is funny how some things that got exhaustively tested in the same patch suddenly create synergy together and become meta. I took some instructions from the top tactic into Autumn, and will test if Step Up More is actually helping or not. Previously, with IFs staying narrower, it harmed the performance, but maybe with wingers wide it help them reach the byline and cross the ball. Anyway, this is the version without Step Up More, to be compared to the version with it.
Can you tell a little about the choice of choosing CHM contra AM role in midfield? I mean are there any difference in choosing one role over the other? maybe some fits some players better?
i ask because i might try a combination between CHM and AM Expand
CHM drifts to the flanks, opening space for in the middle for other players. It is a role with higher focus on creation. AM will move more in the direction of the goal, getting in better positions to score. Either can work well, as you can see in the top tactics.
Xavinwonderland said: Following a discussion with some members of the forum on what would be the impact of retraining on the CA of a player I realized that there were opinions on the subject but little data.
So I decided to conduct a little test to clarify the situation.
The starting hypothesis was the following: when player gain attributes it will cost them CA points, that cost is not the same for all the player and is driven by their position. As an example it is more expensive for a defender to train tacking than it would be for a striker because that attribute is considered by the game to be useful for the position while it is considered to be much less useful in the case of the striker.
There was therefore a theoretical possibility to exploit that by retraining a player for a position very different of his. For instance you take a striker you teach him tackling which is pretty much a free attribute for him and then you turn him into a defender.
For that test you are going to take a player put him in a position different than his with the editor while erasing his natural position to simulate the perfect training that we could have achieved (like a natural defender with striker stats) and then we are going to reintroduce a position familiarity in the striker role up to natural.
I took one of the striker from my AJAX save. Based on his attributes when he is playing as a natural striker with no other roles he has a CA of 125. When I erased the striker familiarity to 1 and instead puts him as a natural defender his CA is 103. There is no magic here this is just the application of the different weights for the different attributes and it shows that our starting hypothesis is valid.
Now this is what happens when I start retraining him as a striker:
What you see in the defender/strikers columns are the position familiarity for the role.
The RCA is what the game would see as the new CA, if that value is above the CA of the player we have 2 options, either the player is maxed out in terms of PA and he will has to lose attributes to compensate until he reaches back his CA, if he is not maxed out it will cost him CA in term of developement and will not be able to reach the same level of attributes than he would have had he not been retrained.
The delta is the impact on the RCA of 1 point increase in the similarity when we retrain him.
I also did another simulation with another player with better stats and a natural CA of 144 as a striker instead of the 125 that we have in the first set of data to see if the move are consistent for different player ranges.
What we can see is that retraining someone up until 8 is free but then some costs start to appear for the better subject when we reach 9.
Then the cost of retraining is not linear with the bulk of the cost happening between 10 and 16 familiarity which means that is basically always worth it in a more normal scenario to retrain someone from accomplished to natural in a position as the cost for that upgrade is almost free.
We can also see that retraining someone with 2 opposite positions seems to take to worse of the 2 weights and not the average. It can be shown that when our subject was a pure defender he was CA103, a pure striker CA125 and when he was natural in both he was CA133. So retraining someone to an opposite position is never worth it from an optimisation point of view.
Also when you scout and you see players able to play different positions (even if they cant play them well) it will have an impact in terms of development vs someone that can only play 1. The more opposite the position the worse the impact will be. So for instance an advanced midfielder that can play as a striker will cost you virtually nothing, while a player being able to player being able to play as a DC and all the midfielder roles will cost a lot.
So the test clearly goes in the direction that some people had hinted to in their comments but at least now we have data to back it up Expand
I have tested that before and can confirm, it takes the highest weights of all positions for CA calculations. That is why it is free to train flank players to the opposite side, because they costs remain the same.
You test the same way as tactics, but check different things, like goals from free kicks or corners. Keep in mind that some set pieces might increase goals from corners, for example, but reduce your points in the league or goal difference, by exposing you to counter-attacks. That's why your key statistic should always be points and goal difference.
Pushed wingbacks forward so they can participate more in scoring. That also allows them to not lose the ball in dangerous areas when they make mistakes.
in the mean time i tried to create a version of your tactic that remained the same positions in possesion, but out off posession it is a 4-2-4 (moving one defender up on DM and one DM up to AM) and defensive line to high and also changing the mentality to positive instead of attacking, since i found it very hard to keep possesion when mentality was attacking, i think this has chained in FM26, tried changing team instructions to keep possession in all the traits that allow this, but possesion stat didnt increase until i changed mentality to positive Expand
The only stats that matter are goal difference by the end of matches, and points by the end of the league. Possession is just a mean to achieve that, but not the only one. If you want a tactic with high possession, you can simply change passing from direct to shorter, but it will be less effective.
Now ive tried this for 2 1/2 season with the danish club Odense Boldklub (newly promoted to superliga when i took over)
dominated first season and already thought this tactic was amazing!
next season i was qualified for champions league (through knock off matches to proceed to the league round of CL)
AND I WAS BAFFLED! look at my screenshot i absolutely dominated the league phase, and are in the semi final against barcelone already won the first match 2-1 at home.
This tactic is amazing...
my only wishes in the future is to tweak this against opponnents that i am much stronger than, because i often play 0-0 or win with a small margin against those team, because they often are defensive, but they still have alot of possesion because of the meta of this tactic (low blok)
Do you have any advise on how to tweak this to control game better, against weaker teams, i think about maybe more possesion wise or change formation to press higer against those?
thank you very much Expand
Gratz! You can try to change mentality to Very Attacking against weak teams, and see how it goes.
EmreBJK said: Will making too many transfers affect the results?I play for Dortmund and I'm struggling to win matches.I use this tactic.What should I do to improve team cohesion? Expand
Team cohesion increases naturally with time as players win matches together. It can also be affected by training, but in short, it is something that you need to be patient to build up. I am not sure how much it affects performance, so I cannot say if changing the team too much is a problem or not, but I would prefer to have better players than more cohesive players any time.
Can you tell a little about the choice of choosing CHM contra AM role in midfield?
I mean are there any difference in choosing one role over the other?
maybe some fits some players better?
i ask because i might try a combination between CHM and AM
CHM drifts to the flanks, opening space for in the middle for other players. It is a role with higher focus on creation. AM will move more in the direction of the goal, getting in better positions to score. Either can work well, as you can see in the top tactics.
So I decided to conduct a little test to clarify the situation.
The starting hypothesis was the following: when player gain attributes it will cost them CA points, that cost is not the same for all the player and is driven by their position. As an example it is more expensive for a defender to train tacking than it would be for a striker because that attribute is considered by the game to be useful for the position while it is considered to be much less useful in the case of the striker.
There was therefore a theoretical possibility to exploit that by retraining a player for a position very different of his. For instance you take a striker you teach him tackling which is pretty much a free attribute for him and then you turn him into a defender.
For that test you are going to take a player put him in a position different than his with the editor while erasing his natural position to simulate the perfect training that we could have achieved (like a natural defender with striker stats) and then we are going to reintroduce a position familiarity in the striker role up to natural.
I took one of the striker from my AJAX save. Based on his attributes when he is playing as a natural striker with no other roles he has a CA of 125. When I erased the striker familiarity to 1 and instead puts him as a natural defender his CA is 103. There is no magic here this is just the application of the different weights for the different attributes and it shows that our starting hypothesis is valid.
Now this is what happens when I start retraining him as a striker:
What you see in the defender/strikers columns are the position familiarity for the role.
The RCA is what the game would see as the new CA, if that value is above the CA of the player we have 2 options, either the player is maxed out in terms of PA and he will has to lose attributes to compensate until he reaches back his CA, if he is not maxed out it will cost him CA in term of developement and will not be able to reach the same level of attributes than he would have had he not been retrained.
The delta is the impact on the RCA of 1 point increase in the similarity when we retrain him.
I also did another simulation with another player with better stats and a natural CA of 144 as a striker instead of the 125 that we have in the first set of data to see if the move are consistent for different player ranges.
What we can see is that retraining someone up until 8 is free but then some costs start to appear for the better subject when we reach 9.
Then the cost of retraining is not linear with the bulk of the cost happening between 10 and 16 familiarity which means that is basically always worth it in a more normal scenario to retrain someone from accomplished to natural in a position as the cost for that upgrade is almost free.
We can also see that retraining someone with 2 opposite positions seems to take to worse of the 2 weights and not the average. It can be shown that when our subject was a pure defender he was CA103, a pure striker CA125 and when he was natural in both he was CA133. So retraining someone to an opposite position is never worth it from an optimisation point of view.
Also when you scout and you see players able to play different positions (even if they cant play them well) it will have an impact in terms of development vs someone that can only play 1. The more opposite the position the worse the impact will be. So for instance an advanced midfielder that can play as a striker will cost you virtually nothing, while a player being able to player being able to play as a DC and all the midfielder roles will cost a lot.
So the test clearly goes in the direction that some people had hinted to in their comments but at least now we have data to back it up
I have tested that before and can confirm, it takes the highest weights of all positions for CA calculations. That is why it is free to train flank players to the opposite side, because they costs remain the same.
Tackle harder all, flank players stay narrower, wingbacks shoot less, OCBs take more risks.
in the mean time i tried to create a version of your tactic that remained the same positions in possesion, but out off posession it is a 4-2-4 (moving one defender up on DM and one DM up to AM) and defensive line to high and also changing the mentality to positive instead of attacking, since i found it very hard to keep possesion when mentality was attacking, i think this has chained in FM26, tried changing team instructions to keep possession in all the traits that allow this, but possesion stat didnt increase until i changed mentality to positive
The only stats that matter are goal difference by the end of matches, and points by the end of the league. Possession is just a mean to achieve that, but not the only one. If you want a tactic with high possession, you can simply change passing from direct to shorter, but it will be less effective.
Now ive tried this for 2 1/2 season with the danish club Odense Boldklub (newly promoted to superliga when i took over)
dominated first season and already thought this tactic was amazing!
next season i was qualified for champions league (through knock off matches to proceed to the league round of CL)
AND I WAS BAFFLED! look at my screenshot i absolutely dominated the league phase, and are in the semi final against barcelone already won the first match 2-1 at home.
This tactic is amazing...
my only wishes in the future is to tweak this against opponnents that i am much stronger than, because i often play 0-0 or win with a small margin against those team, because they often are defensive, but they still have alot of possesion because of the meta of this tactic (low blok)
Do you have any advise on how to tweak this to control game better, against weaker teams, i think about maybe more possesion wise or change formation to press higer against those?
thank you very much
Gratz! You can try to change mentality to Very Attacking against weak teams, and see how it goes.
This, and it is not even close. I don't know what they put in their food, but they really score a lot.
Team cohesion increases naturally with time as players win matches together. It can also be affected by training, but in short, it is something that you need to be patient to build up. I am not sure how much it affects performance, so I cannot say if changing the team too much is a problem or not, but I would prefer to have better players than more cohesive players any time.
Just kidding. I'm just a little confused, and your message seemed the clearest to me.
Anyway, thanks.
The table has english translation. Anyway, you are welcome to use my version, I was just saying there are other options. =)