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?
gallina said: Separately, can 'OK' tactics be workable in-game? Expand
Yes, it'll work just fine.
gallina said: 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). Expand
I've done a lot of testing myself, and I can tell you that even a very simple formation such as the one I've attached can work just fine. Won the league and occasionally lowered the tempo, with a very patient build-up.
Probably the only things you can't go without are "much more often" trigger press and "get stuck in", though even those can be replaced by individual instructions.
Excellent tactics are "working" the match engine to the max, and frankly, once you start using them, they suck the fun out of the game very quickly. With a tactic such as mine, you can have fun by overperforming a bit but while still having credible results.
gallina said: Separately, can 'OK' tactics be workable in-game? Expand
This website is essentially just a maximisation platform for FM tactics, to try and find the absolute best possible solution and have some statistical data to back that up. As you can see from the tactics table, these have all been tested for several thousand matches using the same players in a very controlled environment.
When you play the game yourself, you are only likely to be playing fifty games in a season, using players who may specialise in one role over another, and you also have a huge risk of injury. That's not to mention the fact that the RNG over fifty games is significantly higher than it is over five thousand. Therefore, if the universe aligns, a possession-based 4-3-3 could come out on top against a meta gegenpress 4-2-4 despite the 4-2-4 being optimal for the way that this match engine works. Over five thousand games it won't be better, but you could well find yourself winning the league with an 'OK' tactic.
It is important that in pursuit of maximisation that you don't lose what the purpose of playing the game is, fun.
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?
gallina said: Separately, can 'OK' tactics be workable in-game?
Yes, it'll work just fine.
gallina said: 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).
https://fm-arena.com/thread/13324-gasp4-v4-revengemode/
The tactic above uses "Winger", "Segundo Volante", "Inverted Wing Back", "Inside Forward", "Defensive Midfield", "Full Back", "Advanced Forward" and "Pressing Forward".
it has 8 different roles and it works great.
I've done a lot of testing myself, and I can tell you that even a very simple formation such as the one I've attached can work just fine.
Won the league and occasionally lowered the tempo, with a very patient build-up.
Probably the only things you can't go without are "much more often" trigger press and "get stuck in", though even those can be replaced by individual instructions.
Excellent tactics are "working" the match engine to the max, and frankly, once you start using them, they suck the fun out of the game very quickly.
With a tactic such as mine, you can have fun by overperforming a bit but while still having credible results.
gallina said: Separately, can 'OK' tactics be workable in-game?
This website is essentially just a maximisation platform for FM tactics, to try and find the absolute best possible solution and have some statistical data to back that up. As you can see from the tactics table, these have all been tested for several thousand matches using the same players in a very controlled environment.
When you play the game yourself, you are only likely to be playing fifty games in a season, using players who may specialise in one role over another, and you also have a huge risk of injury. That's not to mention the fact that the RNG over fifty games is significantly higher than it is over five thousand. Therefore, if the universe aligns, a possession-based 4-3-3 could come out on top against a meta gegenpress 4-2-4 despite the 4-2-4 being optimal for the way that this match engine works. Over five thousand games it won't be better, but you could well find yourself winning the league with an 'OK' tactic.
It is important that in pursuit of maximisation that you don't lose what the purpose of playing the game is, fun.