ZaZ - Red 0.1

Red is a high intensity tactic with very attacking mentality. This is an early post for people that want to use a solid tactic during beta, but performance can change drastically after release, when match engine changes. Description will be updated after game release.

Here are some results and performance of a holiday test with Manchester City and Norwich, predicted 1st and 20th respectively. Tactic was just plugged in and all other decisions were up to assistant manager, including team selection.




Leave a comment below if you liked the tactic and make sure to share your results. Enjoy!

I'm loving your tactic so far, play it for away games and its very dominating. I changed one of the target men to poacher though which I find suits my striker balance better plus poacher is op it seems this version

Good to see strikers are back being deadly this year

Really, really, really hoping for actual striker formations to be back this year and preferably 2 striker formations.. fingers crossed. This version reminds me of that version that dominated FM19. I'm in love with this look. So far so good in the BETA.

Based on your tests so far what's the most suited striker profile for the tactic? You think small and pacey ones will be fine even though by definition that's not what the role is?

avonseller said: Based on your tests so far what's the most suited striker profile for the tactic? You think small and pacey ones will be fine even though by definition that's not what the role is? Expand

Yeah, fast is better. Those TFs don't play like your usual big bad guy that stays on the box all time. They instead will get the ball several times in the middle of the pitch and hold it until CM, wingers and other TF run into space.

I like to follow the philosophy of short-long-wide, meaning whenever a player touches the ball, he should have at least one option for short passing, long passing and someone in the flank giving width. DLP is the one offering short option most of the time in the back, while in the front it's CM and TFs. For long passes, you have all five forward players with run into space. The tactic actually changes from 4132 to 235 when you have possession, allowing you to overwhelm your opponent's defense. Finally, for width, the winger with the ball will cut to the middle while the other winger from the same side (IWB or IW) will run wide. This allows you to put high pressure from every direction, which makes it harder to defend against.

ZaZ said: Yeah, fast is better. Those TFs don't play like your usual big bad guy that stays on the box all time. They instead will get the ball several times in the middle of the pitch and hold it until CM, wingers and other TF run into space.

I like to follow the philosophy of short-long-wide, meaning whenever a player touches the ball, he should have at least one option for short passing, long passing and someone in the flank giving width. DLP is the one offering short option most of the time in the back, while in the front it's CM and TFs. For long passes, you have all five forward players with run into space. The tactic actually changes from 4132 to 235 when you have possession, allowing you to overwhelm your opponent's defense. Finally, for width, the winger with the ball will cut to the middle while the other winger from the same side (IWB or IW) will run wide. This allows you to put high pressure from every direction, which makes it harder to defend against. Expand

Good summary. Love the 235 shape in buildup with the IWBs I'll give it a spin

i was using af. tf is better than af ? and i've already bought 2 af strikers they arent like a target player but shall i think same like af ? (you know i changed your blue 3.0 to 2 strikers af and winger version)

Ucan said: i was using af. tf is better than af ? and i've already bought 2 af strikers they arent like a target player but shall i think same like af ? (you know i changed your blue 3.0 to 2 strikers af and winger version) Expand

It's fine, fast players make better TF than those slow but strong.

and i set their trainings as a AF or shall i change to TF? i changed wingers trainings to inverted winger

Ucan said: and i set their trainings as a AF or shall i change to TF? i changed wingers trainings to inverted winger Expand

Always change training for their roles, so they get maximum tactical familiarity. I also recommend individual training for quickness. They will complain about it, but ignore the complaints. =)

but i use pedro gonçalves and darwin nunez they reduce if i train them as TF dont they?

ZaZ said: Always change training for their roles, so they get maximum tactical familiarity. I also recommend individual training for quickness. They will complain about it, but ignore the complaints. =) Expand

ZaZ, how much percentage of role 2Tf-at is better than roles 2Af-at?

Ucan said: but i use pedro gonçalves and darwin nunez they reduce if i train them as TF dont they? Expand

As long as they are fast, it doesn't matter much what role your scouts or assistant manager thinks they play best.

Sane said: ZaZ, how much percentage of role 2Tf-at is better than roles 2Af-at? Expand

I don't know, might be just 2 or 3 points in the end of a full season.

Added Red 0.1. They have almost the same performance, but Red 0.1 is slightly better for stronger team while Red 0.2 is slightly better for weaker team.

i see thank you

After some testing, I noticed Red 0.2 was actually worse than Red 0.1. It's just that the first couple of results were too good, possibly outliers due to RNG. I have removed it from the main post to avoid confusion, but it will be here if anyone still want to try it.

ZaZ said: After some testing, I noticed Red 0.2 was actually worse than Red 0.1. It's just that the first couple of results were too good, possibly outliers due to RNG. I have removed it from the main post to avoid confusion, but it will be here if anyone still want to try it. Expand

The only difference between 0.2 and 0.1 is 'Slow pace down', i think. Does your test show that this TI is inefficient?

Any results with the tactics?

Gaksital said: The only difference between 0.2 and 0.1 is 'Slow pace down', i think. Does your test show that this TI is inefficient? Expand

Yeah. It went very well in the first two runs, then bad in the later three. I then run a couple more just to be sure, and it was worse.

Chewbacca said: Any results with the tactics? Expand

Running right now. (Don't have a save of the end of season to get the screenshots.)

I am really interested in your U18 and U23 results as well. If you are testing lower division leagues they also show a fair bit.

Here's my test with Tottenham, predicted 6th

ZaZ - Red 0.1

Eric said: Here's my test with Tottenham, predicted 6th







Expand

Thank you for testing!

I'm not with much time this week to keep testing, so I just rolled back and added the pictures from Red 0.2. Match engine will change in one week after game releases, so I'll wait to test more when that happens. I also want the editor to create a league and make testing more reliable.

ZaZ said: I also want the editor to create a league and make testing more reliable. Expand

Soon after the release fm-arena will start testing tactics so it'll be fast and reliable

ZaZ - Red 0.1

Leeds

which is better between test, 0.1 and 0.2 ?

arsenal737 said: which is better between test, 0.1 and 0.2 ? Expand

Hard to know, they are pretty close. 0.1 worked better for stronger team while 0.2 for weaker, but I'm not sure at all.

ZaZ said: After some testing, I noticed Red 0.2 was actually worse than Red 0.1. It's just that the first couple of results were too good, possibly outliers due to RNG. I have removed it from the main post to avoid confusion, but it will be here if anyone still want to try it. Expand

uhh

pixar said: uhh Expand

It's very close, don't be alarmed.

tweaked blue 3.0 with wingers and af tactic works better than red 0.2 and 0.1 i can share if you want to check

Ucan said: tweaked blue 3.0 with wingers and af tactic works better than red 0.2 and 0.1 i can share if you want to check Expand

You can put here for people to try.