AI Tactics/Formations

[ToniDoppelpack]

Hi,

please tell me if this has been discussed aleady but I didn't find it.

I observed that AI seems only to use the pre-set formations (at least against me). Can anyone confirm that or have you seen other?

If yes, isn't that contradicting with the often stated "fact" that the AI has the same "instruments" as human players?

My conclusion for the moment is: to create "equal chances" I am currently also only using these formations which makes tactics tweaking a lot less fun... Also because some obvious formations are not included.

And is there any indication that AI does not only use pre set formations but maybe even only pre set tactics? Or are there observations that it at least is amending these? 

 

[wazzaflow10]

3 hours ago, ToniDoppelpack said:

Hi,

please tell me if this has been discussed aleady but I didn't find it.

I observed that AI seems only to use the pre-set formations (at least against me). Can anyone confirm that or have you seen other?

If yes, isn't that contradicting with the often stated "fact" that the AI has the same "instruments" as human players?

My conclusion for the moment is: to create "equal chances" I am currently also only using these formations which makes tactics tweaking a lot less fun... Also because some obvious formations are not included.

And is there any indication that AI does not only use pre set formations but maybe even only pre set tactics? Or are there observations that it at least is amending these? 

 

Last I heard the AI won't use asymmetric ones unless they are part of the selectable formations, that is correct. They don't use the off the shelf tactics presets unless it perfectly fits their style though. They'll create their own style or use a style that a researcher has given them.

[ToniDoppelpack]

Ok thanks, doesn't sound too bad.

But please correct me if I'm wrong: for example the 4-2-3-1 the AI uses is always with 2 DMs (as the preset) and never with CMs. Same with formations with 5 defenders. That probably because there are no such preset formations with 2 CMs.

As human player I have often used CMs in these formations as I think that this reflects reality better or sometimes works better. But now I feel I have an unfair advantage when doing so...

[andu1]

Sorry but the real life 4-2-3-1 employs a double pivot or 2 holding midfielders not 2 CM's like you would see in a 4-1-2-3.

I don't think that 4-2-3-1 with CM's reflects reality in any way possible.

[wazzaflow10]

2 hours ago, ToniDoppelpack said:

Ok thanks, doesn't sound too bad.

But please correct me if I'm wrong: for example the 4-2-3-1 the AI uses is always with 2 DMs (as the preset) and never with CMs. Same with formations with 5 defenders. That probably because there are no such preset formations with 2 CMs.

As human player I have often used CMs in these formations as I think that this reflects reality better or sometimes works better. But now I feel I have an unfair advantage when doing so...

There was a change in 22 or 23 I forget which where the engine required using DMs instead of CMs. So that's what the AI is doing. I don't know all of the reasons why the change was made but the tactics forum would be able to help you explain the differences.

It's a single player game you play how you want. I don't use anything but formations the game comes with with minor exceptions of being down late and I'm just trying to hoof the ball up the field. But there's no single right way to play unless you're playing with others.

[Rashidi]

6 hours ago, ToniDoppelpack said:

I observed that AI seems only to use the pre-set formations (at least against me). Can anyone confirm that or have you seen other?

The AI has its own set of tactics, each manager has up to 3 formations it can use during a game and whether they choose to or not depends on the manager's style of play and attributes. 

[CAE82]

Regarding the shift from CM to DM then this thread is nice.

Based on manager attributes in the editor and the tendencies in their profiles, I’ve always presumed those change the ‘sliders’ in the tactic creator. I guess that is why FM Pep/City are not as good as real-life City as his attributes are based on real-life interpretation but it doesn’t translate to success on the match engine.

It’s also interesting to watch the roles/duties of the opposition AI change during a game. I recall playing Liverpool and Salah/TAA alternated in a 4231. Salah would be IF(A) while TAA was WB(S). Then Salah would move to support and TAA went to attack.

I can’t be sure, but based on a features video I saw with Miles a few years back, I think the quality of your performance analysts determine how quickly you get the in-match information about opposition roles (and possibly the accuracy? Pure speculation on my part!)

 

[Mitja]

9 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

There was a change in 22 or 23 I forget which where the engine required using DMs instead of CMs. So that's what the AI is doing. I don't know all of the reasons why the change was made but the tactics forum would be able to help you explain the differences.

There were problems with AI role selection where attacking players like KDB, Pogba, Odegaard etc would play as holding midfielders - DLPs. Usually such players don't have positional ability in DM and won't be selected as holding midfielders there.

[kingjericho]

This was explained by the staff in a thread I can't find right now.

The number of preset formations was reduced and the DM/CM positions were readjusted to better fit with AI behaviour.

AI managers only use preset formations, and they basically cover 95% of what is used IRL. (even Marcelo Bielsa said there are only 10 different formations everyone uses a small variation of one of those)

[wazzaflow10]

10 hours ago, Mitja said:

There were problems with AI role selection where attacking players like KDB, Pogba, Odegaard etc would play as holding midfielders - DLPs. Usually such players don't have positional ability in DM and won't be selected as holding midfielders there.

Makes sense. I still play 21 a lot an CMs are definitely used there. The only annoying thing is getting players who only have positional ability at CM. Not that they won't be affective at AM or DM but I feel like if a player plays CM they should either have positional abilities at either AM or DM as well depending on how they play.